Ira Johnson III v. State ( 2018 )

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
1
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Do Not Publish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.
3