David Charles Watts v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

Affirm and Opinion Filed August 19, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00162-CR
DAVID CHARLES WATTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1734528-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
On April 17, 2019, David Charles Watts entered an agreed plea of guilt to the
second degree offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court followed the plea
agreement and placed appellant on deferred adjudication for three years. The State
subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate. On January 30, 2020, appellant pleaded
true to the allegation in the State’s motion that he failed to successfully complete the
drug program as ordered by the court. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea of
true and sentenced him to three years’ incarceration. Appellant timely filed a notice
of appeal.
On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concluded the appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the
record showing why, in effect there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High
v. State, 572 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel provided a copy of the brief, the complete record, and her motion to
withdraw to appellant. She also notified appellant of his right to object to the motion
and the applicable deadlines for filing a response. By letter dated September 8, 2020,
we advised appellant that his counsel filed a brief in which she stated she determined
his appeal was frivolous and without merit, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel; we attached those documents to the letter. We advised appellant he had a
right to review the appellate record and file a pro se response. We further advised
appellant that if he did not file a pro se response by October 22, 2020, his case would
be submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in
Anders cases). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
–2–
/Erin A. Nowell//
ERIN A. NOWELL
200162f.u05 JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAVID CHARLES WATTS, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1734528-Y.
No. 05-20-00162-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Osborne and Pedersen, III
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 19th day of August, 2021.
–4–