Court Opinion

ID: 3079937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:47:45.283926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:37.120793
License: Public Domain

In The

                                  Court of Appeals
                      Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                _________________
                                  NO. 09-11-00666-CR
                                _________________

                           HARGUST JOHNSON, Appellant

                                            V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 11-12147
________________________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Hargust Johnson1 was indicted for the State Jail felony offense of

burglary of a building. He entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. A jury found

appellant guilty of burglary of a building and assessed punishment at fifteen months

confinement, and a fine of $500. The trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen months

confinement, and assessed a fine of $500.

      1
          Hargust Johnson is also known as Jay Johnson.

                                            1
      Johnson’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 5, 2012, we granted an extension of time for appellant

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

      We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                       ___________________________
                                                              CHARLES KREGER
                                                                   Justice
Submitted on October 1, 2012
Opinion Delivered October 10, 2012
Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

      2
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

                                            2