Case Information
*1 AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 29, 2021
In The No. 05-20-00361-CR No. 05-20-00362-CR No. 05-20-00363-CR No. 05-20-00365-CR No. 05-20-00366-CR No. 05-20-00367-CR No. 05-20-00368-CR MARCUS JOHNSON-MCBRYDE, Appellant V.
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-83474-2018; 380-81396-2019; 380-81395-2019;
199-83250-2018; 199-83247-2018; 199-83246-2018; 199-81278-2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith
Marcus Johnson-McBryde appeals his assault of a public servant, two aggravated assaults of a public servant, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, aggravated robbery, evading arrest, and robbery convictions. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that the records do not contain any reversible error that was preserved for appellate review. Counsel states in the brief that he provided appellant with a copy *2 of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw and advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response. In addition, this Court notified appellant of his right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a pro se response.
The procedures established in Anders are applicable where, as here, the appellant’s appointed counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 849–50 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). This Court is not required to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d at 850. Instead, our duty is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for reversal and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address the issues. See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d at 850.
In the Anders brief, counsel for appellant presents a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal and concluding that appellant’s appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. We independently reviewed all the records and counsel’s Anders brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that could arguably support the appeals.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE Do Not Publish
T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b)
200361F.U05
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
Judgment entered June 29, 2021.