Lucious Ray Johnson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 19, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00504-CR LUCIOUS RAY JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 263473 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lucious Ray Johnson appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing.1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 1 See also Johnson v. State, No. 14-06-00317-CR, 2007 WL 925704 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 29, 2007)(mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (affirming trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing). presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.