Frank Daniel Johnson v. State

Opinion issued July 16, 2009























In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-08-00124-CR

____________



FRANK DANIEL JOHNSON, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1141440




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Frank Daniel Johnson, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder. After a presentence investigation and a hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 35 years.

Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating the record presents no reversible error, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel represents that she has served a copy of the brief on appellant and advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) Attorney Mary C. Acosta must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

We deny as moot any pending motions.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).