Brandy Nicole Johnson v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-14-00408-CR NO. 09-14-00409-CR ________________ BRANDY NICOLE JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 08-04379, 09-05852 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Brandy Nicole Johnson 1 pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a controlled substance. In the aggravated assault case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Johnson guilty, but deferred finding her guilty, placed her on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $500 fine. In the In trial cause number 09-05852, the judgment refers to appellant as “Brandy Nicole Ooten a/k/a Brandy Nicole Johnson[.]” 1 1 possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court found Johnson guilty, assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, suspended the imposition of her sentence, and placed Johnson on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed motions to revoke Johnson’s community supervision in both cases. In both cases, Johnson pleaded “true” to two violations of the conditions of her community supervision. In the aggravated assault case, the trial court revoked Johnson’s unadjudicated community supervision, found her guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. In the possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court revoked Johnson’s community supervision and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences would run concurrently. . Johnson’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 1, 2014, we granted an extension of time for Johnson to file a pro se brief in both cases. Johnson did not file a pro se brief in either of the cases. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. 2 Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on March 3, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 18, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2 Johnson may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
