In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-07-330 CR
____________________
ZAWON KAMEYON JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 95425
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Zawon Kameyon Johnson pled nolo contendere to possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Johnson on community supervision for three years, and assessed a $500 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Johnson's community supervision. Johnson pled "true" to violating five terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Johnson violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Johnson's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility.
Johnson's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Johnson filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error" or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support this appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)
AFFIRMED.
_________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on February 12, 2008
Opinion Delivered February 20, 2008
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.