Hargust Johnson v. The State of Texas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00666-CR _________________ HARGUST JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11-12147 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Hargust Johnson1 was indicted for the State Jail felony offense of burglary of a building. He entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a building and assessed punishment at fifteen months confinement, and a fine of $500. The trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen months confinement, and assessed a fine of $500. 1 Hargust Johnson is also known as Jay Johnson. 1 Johnson s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 5, 2012, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on October 1, 2012 Opinion Delivered October 10, 2012 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.