Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 07-22-2016
Case Style: Darrian DewayneJohnson, Jr. v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 12-15-00099-CR
Judge: Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
Plaintiff's Attorney: Rachel L. Patton
Defendant's Attorney: Forrest K. Phifer
Description: Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram, a state jail felony. Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence and judicial confession in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed, to the offense alleged in the indictment, and admitted that he committed each and every element alleged in the indictment and that he was guilty as charged. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant’s guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years.
2
Later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. At the hearing, the State abandoned paragraph 15 of its motion. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24, 29, and 30, and “true” to the remaining paragraphs. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be “true,” granted the State’s motion, adjudged Appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substances, namely, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or less, and assessed his punishment at two years in a state jail facility. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s briefs present a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.1 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in the case. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant
wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: View Case