Johnathan Wesley Bruce v. The State of Texas Appeal from 258th District Court of Polk County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00129-CR _______________________ JOHNATHAN WESLEY BRUCE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25,141 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant Johnathan Wesley Bruce guilty of injury to a child with intentional bodily injury, a third-degree felony, and assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(3), (f) (West Supp. 2018). 1 Bruce’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 1 We cite the current version of the statute as amendments subsequent to Bruce’s offense do not affect our disposition. 1 evaluation of the record, and she concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Bruce of his right to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 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 2 Bruce may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on March 19, 2019 Opinion Delivered April 3, 2019 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 3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.
