Court Opinion

ID: 9956872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 06:12:26.246145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:56.701483
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed March 26, 2024

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00806-CR
                               No. 05-22-00807-CR
                               No. 05-22-00828-CR
                      ROBERT LEE JOHNSON, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
                           Dallas County, Texas
      Trial Court Cause Nos. F-2152734-M, F-2253336-M, F-2055828-M

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
                           Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Robert Lee Johnson appeals his convictions for three offenses – one for

aggravated robbery and two for delivery of a controlled substance. In trial court case

number F-2055828-M, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery.

On December 9, 2020, he was sentenced to five years’ deferred adjudication

probation.

      On March 4, 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation

and proceed with an adjudication of his guilt based, in part, on appellant’s

commission of the offense of delivery of a controlled substance as charged in case
number F-2152734-M. On August 5, 2021, Appellant pleaded true to violating his

probation. He additionally pleaded guilty to the drug offense and was sentenced to

ten years’ confinement in that case.       The State’s motion to adjudicate in the

aggravated robbery case was continued.

      On February 21, 2022, appellant was granted shock probation in case number

F-2152734-M. The State withdrew its motion to adjudicate in the aggravated

robbery case on the same day.

      Approximately two months later, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s

shock probation and a second motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in the

aggravated robbery case. The motions alleged that appellant had failed to report to

his community supervision officer. The State later amended the motions to add the

commission of a new offense of delivery of a controlled substance as another

probation violation. This second drug offense is the subject of case number F-

2253336-M.

      On August 11, the trial court conducted a hearing in all three cases. Appellant

pleaded true to the alleged probation violations and guilty to the second drug offense.

Appellant’s shock probation was revoked, and the court reinstated the ten-year

sentence in that case. The trial court also adjudicated appellant guilty in both the

aggravated robbery case and the second drug case and sentenced him to twenty-five

years’ confinement and one year of confinement respectively. Appellant’s right to

appeal was certified in all three cases.

                                           –2–
      On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in

which he concludes there are no arguable points of error, and the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. He has also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw

as appointed counsel. When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no

arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by

conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967) (emphasizing that the reviewing court, and not appointed counsel,

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the case is “wholly

frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

(quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that

“appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for

error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,

409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006).

      The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a

professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to

advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). We advised

appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response and he did not file a

                                       –3–
response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

      Although not an arguable issue, appellant’s counsel notes that the order

granting appellant shock probation in case number F-2152734-M was signed outside

the trial court’s period of plenary power. A trial court retains jurisdiction to suspend

a defendant’s sentence and place him on community supervision probation for only

180 days after the defendant begins serving his sentence. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42A.202. Here, the trial court signed the order granting appellant shock

probation 200 days after his sentence began. Because the order granting shock

probation was signed outside the 180-day period in which the trial court retained

jurisdiction, the order and the subsequent judgment reinstating appellant’s original

ten-year sentence are void. See id.; Rice v. State, 971 S.W.2d 533, 535 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1997, no pet.) (appellant never legally on shock probation cannot complain

of matters pertaining to its revocation). Accordingly, we vacate the February 21,

2022 order granting shock probation and the judgment signed on August 11, 2022

in case number F-2152734-M, leaving in place the original judgment of conviction

rendered on August 5, 2021 in that case. See Rice, 971 S.W.2d at 536.

      The State raises an additional non-arguable issue, stating that the trial court’s

judgment in case number F-2253336-M does not accurately reflect the penalty group

of the controlled substance appellant was convicted of delivering or the correct

statute for the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Appellant pleaded guilty to

                                          –4–
delivery of cocaine in an amount of less than one gram, which is a state jail felony

offense pursuant to section 481.112(b) of the Texas Health and Safety Code. TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(b). Cocaine is a “Penalty Group 1”

controlled substance. Id. § 481.102. This Court has the power to modify a judgment

to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information before

us to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.–Dallas

1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the judgment in trial court case number

F-2253336-M in the following manner:           the “Offense for which Defendant

Convicted” portion of the judgment is modified to state “Manufacture/Delivery of a

Controlled Substance PG1, To-Wit Cocaine” and the “Statute for Offense” portion

of the judgment is modified to state “Section 481.112(b) Health & Safety Code.”

      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and, as modified in the respects

discussed above, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in all three cases.

                                           /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                           AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                           JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
220806F.U05

                                         –5–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE JOHNSON,                         On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
Appellant                                   District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. F-2152734-M.
No. 05-22-00806-CR         V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                            Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                participating.

      Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the February 21,
2022 order granting shock probation and the judgment signed on August 11, 2022,
leaving in place the original judgment of August 5, 2021 which is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 26, 2024

                                      –6–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE JOHNSON,                          On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-2253336-M.
No. 05-22-00807-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

            The “Offense for which Defendant Convicted” portion of the
      judgment is MODIFIED to state “Manufacture/Delivery of a
      Controlled Substance PG1, To-Wit Cocaine” and the “Statute for
      Offense” portion of the judgment is MODIFIED to state “Section
      481.112(b) Health & Safety Code.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 26, 2024

                                       –7–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE JOHNSON,                          On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-2055828-M.
No. 05-22-00828-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 26, 2024

                                       –8–