Anthony Ray Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 07-25-00179-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00179-CR

ANTHONY RAY JOHNSON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 100th District Court Hall County, Texas Trial Court No. 4204, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Jr., Presiding

January 6, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

On February 15, 2024, Appellant, Anthony Ray Johnson, entered a guilty plea to

one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. 1 The trial court

deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision

for a period of ten years. In December of 2024, the State filed a motion to proceed with

adjudication of guilt. The State alleged Appellant failed to comply with multiple conditions

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021. of his community supervision order. Appellant pleaded “true” to three of the allegations

and “not true” to seven allegations. After presentation of the evidence, the trial court

found all allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to sixty

years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed from the judgment adjudicating his guilt.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported

by an Anders 2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record, and, in her opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed

counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).

By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to

counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant filed multiple documents in response. The State has

not filed a brief.

By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of

Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 3

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.