Jaquarius Johnson v. the State of Texas
06-20-00136-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Jaquarius Johnson received a five-year deferred-adjudication community-supervision term for abandoning/endangering a child (state-jail felony).
- About three months into supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging multiple violations, including evading arrest/detention.
- Johnson pleaded true to the allegation that he committed another offense by evading arrest/detention.
- After an evidentiary hearing the trial court adjudicated Johnson guilty and sentenced him to two years' confinement in state jail.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw; Johnson filed a pro se brief arguing the sentence was too harsh.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed the judgment, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw (no substitute counsel appointed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of revocation/adjudication | State: violations proved; plea of true establishes violation | Johnson: did not challenge factual basis on appeal | Affirmed adjudication and conviction based on plea of true |
| Excessiveness of sentence | State: sentence within statutory range and proper | Johnson: sentence is “way too harsh” | No reversible error; sentence affirmed |
| Counsel’s Anders compliance and motion to withdraw | State/ counsel: brief demonstrates no arguable issues; withdrawal appropriate | Johnson: did not show Anders noncompliance or raise arguable issues | Court found Anders procedure satisfied and granted withdrawal |
| Need for independent appellate review | State: appeal frivolous; affirm | Johnson: pro se brief asserted harsh sentence but raised no reversible issue | Court conducted independent review, deemed appeal frivolous, affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s duty to file a brief asserting absence of meritorious issues and appellate court’s independent review requirement)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas treatment of Anders procedure and counsel’s obligations)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standards for counsel’s evaluation of appellate claims)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance on counsel withdrawal)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate court must affirm when independent review shows appeal is without merit)