James Bradley Johnson v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00124-CR

___________________________

JAMES BRADLEY JOHNSON, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR14520

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court adjudicated James Bradley Johnson guilty of possession of four or more, but less than two hundred, grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(a), (d). After adjudicating Johnson guilty, the trial court assessed his punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement and sentenced him accordingly. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32(a). Johnson appealed.

Johnson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion in which he avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable grounds for relief exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

This court gave Johnson the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so. Likewise, the State did not file a response.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on his

3

behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 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 counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that otherwise arguably might 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).

Having found that the appeal is frivolous, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Mike Wallach

Mike Wallach

Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 6, 2024