Court Opinion

ID: 9840109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 07:09:51.409474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:50.900429
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00316-CR
                               __________________

                DOMINIQUE RAMONE JOHNSON, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 22-03-03391-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted Appellant Dominique Ramone Johnson for evading

arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, and the indictment included a paragraph

alleging that Johnson had been previously convicted of a felony. 1 See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). Johnson waived his right to counsel and pleaded not

guilty. The jury found Johnson guilty as charged in the indictment and found that

      1
          The jury also found Johnson guilty of aggravated assault of a public servant
in trial cause number 22-03-03390-CR, but that conviction is not part of this appeal.
                                          1
during the commission of the offense or during immediate flight he used or exhibited

a deadly weapon, namely a motor vehicle. After Johnson pleaded true to the

enhancement allegation, the trial court sentenced Johnson to twenty years of

imprisonment. Johnson timely filed his appeal.

      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Johnson to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Johnson.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

                                          2
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                          LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                               Justice

Submitted on September 8, 2023
Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      2
         Johnson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
                                        3