In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-14-00408-CR
NO. 09-14-00409-CR
________________
BRANDY NICOLE JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 08-04379, 09-05852
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Brandy Nicole Johnson 1
pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a
controlled substance. In the aggravated assault case, the trial court found the
evidence sufficient to find Johnson guilty, but deferred finding her guilty, placed
her on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $500 fine. In the
1
In trial cause number 09-05852, the judgment refers to appellant as “Brandy
Nicole Ooten a/k/a Brandy Nicole Johnson[.]”
1
possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court found Johnson guilty,
assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, suspended the imposition of her
sentence, and placed Johnson on community supervision for ten years.
The State subsequently filed motions to revoke Johnson’s community
supervision in both cases. In both cases, Johnson pleaded “true” to two violations
of the conditions of her community supervision. In the aggravated assault case, the
trial court revoked Johnson’s unadjudicated community supervision, found her
guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. In the possession of a
controlled substance case, the trial court revoked Johnson’s community
supervision and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The trial court
ordered that the sentences would run concurrently. .
Johnson’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional
evaluation of the records and has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). On December 1, 2014, we granted an extension of time for
Johnson to file a pro se brief in both cases. Johnson did not file a pro se brief in
either of the cases. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with
counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we
find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals.
2
Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
affirm the trial court’s judgments.2
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on March 3, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 18, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
2
Johnson may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3