Date: 05-16-2022

Case Style:

Samuel Johnson, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 01-19-00459-CR

Judge:

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Hightower.

Court:

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

On appeal from The 400th District Court of Fort Bend County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Melissa Munoz
John J. Harrity III
Jason J Bennyhoff
Baldwin D. Chin
Brian Marcus Middleton

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Houston, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Child Sexual Predator

Houston, Texas - Criminal Defense lawyer represented defendant with a felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child charge.

Appellant, Samuel Johnson Jr., was charged by indictment with the felony
offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02
Appellant pleaded guilty, without an agreed punishment recommendation, to the
lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE
2
§ 22.021. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to
twenty years’ imprisonment. This sentence is within the applicable range. The trial
court certified that (1) this “is a plea-bargain case with regard to the plea of guilty,
and the defendant has NO right of appeal regarding matters related to the guilt of the
defendant,” (2) “the defendant has waived the right of appeal regarding the guilt of
the defendant,” and (3) “[t]he defendant has the right of appeal for purposes of
punishment.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that,
therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the
record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the
record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that she mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
3
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that she sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was provided a copy of the
record but did not file a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim
raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable
grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a
holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6

Outcome: Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Mandy Miller must
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: