Romeo Johnson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 2, 2009
• Docket: 14-09-00035-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 2, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 2, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00035-CR

ROMEO JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08-03709

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.  In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years and assessed a $500.00 fine.  Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt.  Appellant pled true to multiple allegations that he violated the conditions of his community supervision.  The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Guzman, and Boyce.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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