Damaris Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 06-23-00182-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00182-CR

DAMARIS JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 30307

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

A Lamar County jury convicted Damaris Johnson of unlawful possession of a firearm by

a felon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a) (Supp.). After accepting that verdict, the trial

court, on September 1, 2023, sentenced Johnson to eight years’ imprisonment. Johnson appeals.

Johnson’s attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On February 5, 2024, counsel mailed to Johnson copies of the reporter’s record and the

clerk’s record. Counsel also advised Johnson that she had the right to file a pro se response in

her case or a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file that response. On February

5, 2024, this Court notified Johnson her pro se response was due March 7, 2024. On March 28,

2024, this Court also notified Johnson that this case would be submitted, on the briefs and

without oral argument, on April 18, 2024. Johnson filed neither a pro se response nor a motion

requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

2 We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no

reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: April 18, 2024 Date Decided: May 7, 2024

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3