Nicodia Davis v. State ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00426-CR
__________________
NICODIA DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 14-18777
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Nicodia Davis pleaded guilty
to felony forgery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2018).1 The trial
court found Davis guilty, deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Davis on community
supervision for five years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed
1
We cite current statutes as amendments after Davis’s offense do not affect
our disposition.
1
a motion to revoke Davis’s community supervision alleging five violations of his
terms of community supervision. Davis pleaded “true” to two of the alleged
violations of the terms of the community supervision order, and after a hearing, the
trial court also found the evidence sufficient to find that Davis committed the offense
of terroristic threat in violation of the terms of his community supervision. The trial
court found that Davis violated three of the terms of the community supervision
order, revoked Davis’s community supervision, and found him guilty of the
underlying offense. After a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed four years’
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division.
Davis filed a notice of appeal.
Davis’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record, and he 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
Davis of his right to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response from
Davis.
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
2
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.”);
see also Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A plea of
true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision
and adjudicate guilt.”). 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). However, because the trial court failed to include in the
judgment that it found count three “true,” we modify the “Findings as to Allegations
in Motion to Adjudicate” portion of the trial court’s written judgment by deleting
“True to count(s) 4 & 5” and insert “True to count(s) 3, 4 & 5[.]” See Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noting
courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment). As modified, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment. 2
2
Davis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on August 14, 2019
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2019
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
4