MoreLaw Virtual Receptionists

A jury found appellant Johnathan Wesley Bruce guilty of injury to a child

with intentional bodily injury, a third-degree felony, and assessed punishment at ten

years of imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(3), (f) (West Supp.

2018).1 Bruce’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional



1 We cite the current version of the statute as amendments subsequent to Bruce’s offense do not affect our disposition.

2



evaluation of the record, and she concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit

and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified

Bruce of his right to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have independently

examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible

error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues

raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the

court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2