## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00424 - CR BILLY JACK JOHNSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 213TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1341 005D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1

---------- Appellant Billy Jack Johnson appeals from his conviction for assault and four

- year sentence. We affirm. Johnson was indicted with two counts of assault on Sheila Newby, Johnson’s girlfriend. C ount one alleged John son caused serious bodi ly injury to Newby by punchi ng her with his hand; count two alleged John son cut off Newby’s airway by applying pressure to her throat or neck with his hand.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014) , § 22.02(a)(1) (West 2011 ). The indic tment also contained a repeat

- off ender notice, alleging that John son previously had been convicted of the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See id. § 12.42 (West Supp. 2014 ). John son wa ived his right to a jury and pleaded not guilty to the indictment without benefit of a plea

- bargain agreement. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13 (West Supp. 2014 ). T he trial court found Johnson guilty of count two , a third

- degree felony, but not guilty of count one. Johnson pleaded true to th e repeat
- offender notice, and the trial court sentenced him to four years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33 (West 2011) , § 12.42(a)

. Johnson filed a motion for new trial, arguing that the verdict and judgment were “contrary to the law and the evidence.” The motion was overruled by operation of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8. Johnson timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). Johnson ’s
court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel states that , in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Johnson did not respond to counsel’s brief or motion although both counsel and this court advised him of his right to do so

.3 Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , we have a supervisory obligation to undertake an independent examination of the record

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). In this eval uation, we consider the record and the arguments raised in the Anders brief

. See Un ited States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We have done so and conclude, as did appellate counsel, that there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal and th at the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2006). Accordingly, we GRANT

co unsel’s motion to withdraw and af firm the trial court’s judgm ent

. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988)

.
/s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: October 29 , 2015