Curtis Lee Johnson v. State

Opinion issued November 4, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-11-00352-CR
———————————
CURTIS LEE JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1178448
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Curtis Lee Johnson, appeals from his conviction for aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West
2011). Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the judge with no
recommendation as to punishment. The judge sentenced appellant to 15 years’
confinement. The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible
error and therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812−13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that
warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,
193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file
a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that (1) no reversible error exists in the record, (2) there are no arguable
2
grounds for review, and (3) therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court―not
counsel―determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is
wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826−27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same);
Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (same). Appellant may challenge our holding that
there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary
review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Gary M. Polland must immediately send the notice required
by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the
Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3