Dunta Morris Johnson v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 25, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00917-CR DUNTA MORRIS JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-00400-X MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Brown A jury convicted Dunta Morris Johnson for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon involving family violence. During the punishment phase, appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true and sentenced appellant to twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment erroneously states the punishment was assessed by the jury. The record shows appellant elected to have the trial judge assess punishment. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of the judgment entitled “Punishment Assessed by:” to show “Court.” As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 170917F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DUNTA MORRIS JOHNSON, Appellant No. 05-17-00917-CR On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17-00400-X. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices Bridges and Boatright participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Punishment Assessed by:” to show “Court.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered this 25th day of May, 2018. –3–

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.