Johnny Monarrez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 10, 2020 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01152-CR No. 05-19-01153-CR No. 05-19-01154-CR No. 05-19-01156-CR No. 05-19-01157-CR JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-42334-V; F18-11034-V; F18-42333-V; F19-00036-V; & F18-42332-V MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek Johnny Monarrez entered open pleas of guilty to five robberies committed over the course of two days. The trial court accepted his pleas, found him guilty, and assessed concurrent, twelve-year sentences. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which she concluded the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. She also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel. When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (emphasizing that reviewing court, and not appointed counsel, determines, after full examination of proceeding, whether case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why 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). In her motion, counsel attests that she sent copies of her motion to withdraw, the brief in support of her motion, notice of filing, and a complete record to appellant by certified mail. This Court advised appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response and also attached a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw. No response was filed. See Kelley v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (stating appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). –2– We have reviewed the record in each case and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate courts’ duties in Anders cases). We agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 191152F.U05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-42334-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant No. 05-19-01152-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 10, 2020 –4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-11034-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant No. 05-19-01153-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 10, 2020 –5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-42333-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant No. 05-19-01154-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 10, 2020 –6– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19-00036-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant No. 05-19-01156-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 10, 2020 –7– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-42332-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek; Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, III participating. JOHNNY MONARREZ, Appellant No. 05-19-01157-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 10, 2020 –8–

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.