Court Opinion

ID: 9410021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 08:09:38.516526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.048507
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
                                         No. 07-22-00289-CR

                                JACOB JOHNSON, APPELLANT

                                                   V.

                              THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                         On Appeal from the 371st Criminal District Court
                                      Tarrant County, Texas,
                    Trial Court No. 1701731R, Honorable Ryan Hill, Presiding

                                            July 13, 2023
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                     Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Appellant, Jacob Johnson, was convicted by a jury of one count of murder and a

second count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (firearm);1 he was sentenced

to forty-five years and seventeen years confinement, respectively, with sentences to run

concurrently.2 In his appeal, his counsel filed an Anders3 brief in support of a motion to

        1
         See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b)(1), (c) (first-degree felony) and 22.02(a)(2), (b) (second-
degree felony) respectively.

        2
         Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by
the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations effort. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       The record reflects that on September 10, 2022, Castatanika Guy (driver) and

Devonsha Richardson (passenger) were traveling Interstate 20 to an apartment complex

when they noticed Appellant following them. Guy and Appellant had been romantically

involved. According to testimony, Appellant’s vehicle overtook Guy’s car and pulled up

to the passenger side. Appellant then pulled a revolver and shot Richardson and Guy

before striking their car and exiting Interstate 20. Guy’s car spun out of control ultimately

hitting the guardrail where it stopped. After exiting the car, Richardson discovered Guy’s

lifeless body and was taken to the hospital by ambulance.

       At the hospital, Richardson identified Appellant as the person who shot Guy and

him. Richardson also identified Appellant out of a photo array. At trial, Richardson again

identified Appellant as the shooter. Paint transferred from another vehicle to Guy’s

damaged vehicle appeared to match the paint of the vehicle associated with Appellant.

Appellant’s vehicle was also identified as containing particles consistent with gunshot

residue.

       Appellant’s counsel has certified that after diligently searching the record, he has

conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record

reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant’s counsel

provided Appellant with his motion to withdraw, a copy of his Anders brief, a Pro Se Motion

for Access to the Appellate Record including the clerk’s record and court reporter’s record,

       3
           See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

                                                     2
and a request for an extension of thirty days from the date he receives the appellate

record to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to

file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Appellant filed a response as did the State.

        We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent

review of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. Like counsel, we conclude

there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous

v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.4

                                               Conclusion

        We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                                                   Lawrence M. Doss
                                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

        4
          Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to
withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n. 33.

                                                      3