Court Opinion

ID: 3092004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:05:51.71159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:41.549227
License: Public Domain

In The
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
        ______________________________

              No. 06-10-00175-CR
        ______________________________

          JOHNNY EDWARDS, Appellant

                          V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

    On Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court
             Anderson County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 29656

     Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Johnny Edwards, an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, appeals from his

conviction by a jury for assault of a public servant.1 The jury found alleged enhancements true,

and assessed his punishment at seventy-five years’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the

conviction he is presently serving.

        Edwards’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the

proceedings in detail.       Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

        Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Edwards on January 21, 2011, informing

Edwards of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel has

also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

        Edwards filed a pro se response on April 21, 2011. In his sixty-two-page missive, he

complains about perceived inequities, improprieties in his prior convictions and their use as

enhancements, about the way that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice handles inmates and

their complaints, the use of force against him, alleged incompetence by his trial counsel, and a

1
 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are
unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant
issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.

                                                        2
plethora of other matters.

         We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.                         We have independently

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

                                                                 Jack Carter
                                                                 Justice

Date Submitted:             May 12, 2011
Date Decided:               May 19, 2011

Do Not Publish

2
 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should
appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain
an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.

                                                            3