Phillip Johnson v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00372-CR
Phillip JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
The
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010CR12452
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2014
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Phillip Johnson appeals the judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing
him to three years in prison. Johnson pled no contest in March 2011 to a charge of Possession of
a Controlled Substance (Penalty Group 1, 1-4 grams) as part of a plea agreement with the State.
Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court found Johnson guilty and sentenced him to four years in
prison. The court suspended the sentence and placed Johnson on community supervision for a
period of four years. In May 2013, the State filed a motion to revoke Johnson’s community
supervision, alleging he violated various conditions of his community supervision. Johnson pled
04-13-00372-CR
true to the allegations that he committed a new offense and that he failed to report to his supervision
officer as required. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Johnson’s community supervision and
imposed a three-year prison sentence.
Johnson’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). Counsel states Johnson was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and
was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Johnson has not done so.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Johnson’s attorney and affirm the
trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Do not publish
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Johnson wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion
is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court.
See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
-2-