Antonio Darnell Johnson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 30, 2014
Docket02-12-00641-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Antonio Darnell Johnson v. State (Antonio Darnell Johnson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antonio Darnell Johnson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00641-CR

ANTONIO DARNELL JOHNSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Antonio Darnell Johnson pleaded guilty to burglary of a building,

and a jury assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement. Johnson’s court-

appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support

of that motion. Counsel avers that in her professional opinion, the appeal is

frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v.

California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396

(1967). This court informed Johnson that he may file a pro se brief, but he did

not do so. The State declined to submit a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this

court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–

83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with

counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in

the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d

684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 30, 2014

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Meza v. State
206 S.W.3d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Mays v. State
904 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Antonio Darnell Johnson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-darnell-johnson-v-state-texapp-2014.