James Bradley Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 02-23-00124-CR
• Status: Published

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

2 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