IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00020-CR
CLARENCE JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. FO-13-21575
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clarence Johnson pled guilty to the offense of Fraudulent Use or Possession of
Identification – Less than Five Items. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51 (West 2011).
The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Johnson on community
supervision for five years. Less than a year later, the State filed a motion to revoke
Johnson’s community supervision. Johnson pled true to all but one alleged violation.
The trial court, finding all violations alleged by the State to be true, revoked Johnson’s
community supervision, adjudicated Johnson’s guilt, and sentenced Johnson to two
years in prison.
Johnson's appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Johnson was informed of
his right of access to the appellate record and his right to submit a brief or other
response on his own behalf. He did not request access to the appellate record and did
not submit a brief or response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel reviewed the reporter’s record
and clerk’s record, the sentence received by Johnson, and the factual basis for the
sentence. Counsel specifically discusses the prior history of the case, the sufficiency of
the evidence to support revocation of Johnson’s deferred adjudication community
supervision, the trial court’s failure to conduct a separate sentencing hearing, and the
legality of Johnson’s sentence. Counsel concludes that counsel is unable to find any
non-frivolous error.
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and
we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Johnson v. State Page 2
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436.
An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.
After reviewing counsel's brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Should Johnson 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or
the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was
overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011).
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. See also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Johnson v. State Page 3
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Johnson is granted, and
counsel is permitted to withdraw from representing Johnson. Additionally, counsel
must send Johnson a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition
for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance
with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 3, 2015
Do not publish
[CR25]
Johnson v. State Page 4