Court Opinion

ID: 9376857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-04 07:10:01.912679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.359145
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 2, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                              No. 11-22-00078-CR
                                  __________

                CHANDRA DIANE JOHNSON, Appellant
                                        V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. C-21-0719-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Appellant, Chandra Diane Johnson, of the second-degree
felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2022). The evidence presented at the
guilt/innocence phase of trial included a surveillance video that depicted Appellant
stab a man in the back as he was walking away from her. After convicting Appellant,
the jury heard punishment evidence and assessed Appellant’s punishment at
imprisonment for ten years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We
affirm.
           Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.       Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
           Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have
reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response,
a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible
error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial
court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist. 1

         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
           1

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                    2
       We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                PER CURIAM

March 2, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                        3