DARRIAN DEWAYNE JOHNSON JR APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Darrian DeWayne Johnson Jr. appeals his conviction for endangering a child. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by information with the offense of endangering a child, a state jail felony. Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the information. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence and judicial confession in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed, to the offense alleged in the complaint and information, and admitted that he committed each and every element alleged in the complaint and information and that he was guilty as charged. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant's guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years.

Later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. At the hearing, the State abandoned paragraph 15 of its motion. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24, 29, and 30, and “true” to the remaining paragraphs. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be “true,” granted the State's motion, adjudged Appellant guilty of endangering a child, and assessed his punishment at two years in a state jail facility. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's briefs present a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.¹ See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in the case. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the trial court's judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.