Ira Johnson III v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 28, 2018
• Docket: 09-17-00169-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00169-CR ____________________

IRA JOHNSON III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 312820 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Ira Johnson III’s appellate counsel filed a brief in which he

contends no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing

Johnson’s conviction for criminal mischief, a class B misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 28.03(a), (b)(2) (West Supp. 2017). The record indicates that Johnson

represented himself pro se during his bench trial, at which time the trial court found

him guilty, and then assessed his punishment at 180 days in county jail plus a $1,000

fine. After the trial court sentenced Johnson, he filed an appeal and appellate counsel

filed a brief on his behalf.

In Johnson’s appeal, his counsel field a brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Johnson’s counsel concludes that

any further efforts to pursue an appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After

receiving Johnson’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Johnson

to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Johnson’s

counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that an appeal on the current record

would be frivolous. Therefore, it is not necessary that we appoint new counsel to re-

brief Johnson’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines

that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no

arguable grounds exist to support Johnson’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.1

1 Johnson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on March 1, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 28, 2018 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.