NO. 12-13-00240-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

NATHANIEL JOHNSON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Nathaniel Johnson appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. Appellant’s 

counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of driving while intoxicated, a 

third degree felony. The indictment also included a jurisdictional enhancement paragraph, and 

an allegation that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a motor vehicle, during the commission 

of or immediate flight from the offense. Appellant entered an “open” plea of guilty to the 

offense charged in the indictment, and pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph. Appellant 

and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea. These documents 

included a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that all allegations in the indictment

were true and correct. However, he pleaded “not true” to the deadly weapon allegation. 

After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of driving while 

intoxicated, found the enhancement paragraph to be “true,” made an affirmative finding of a 

deadly weapon, a motor vehicle, and assessed his punishment at eight years of imprisonment. 

This appeal followed.
2

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 brief presents 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.1See 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. 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 are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the 

trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 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 

last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 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 

 

1 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed 

Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for 

filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.
3

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.

Opinion delivered April 30, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 30, 2014

NO. 12-13-00240-CR

NATHANIEL JOHNSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0090-13)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things 

affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 30th

day of April, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

NATHANIEL JOHNSON, Appellant

NO. 12-13-00240-CR; Trial Court No. 007-0090-13

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant’s counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and 

that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the xx day of April, 2014.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk