Kevin Lee Tucker v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00234-CR
No. 10-18-00235-CR
KEVIN LEE TUCKER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 87th District Court
Leon County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-0114CR & 17-0187CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In Cause No. 10-18-00234-CR (Trial Court Cause No. 17-0114CR), Kevin Lee
Tucker entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a firearm by a felon. The
trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Tucker on community supervision
for seven years. In Cause No. 10-18-00235-CR (Trial Court Cause No. 17-0187CR), Tucker
entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial court deferred
adjudication of guilt and placed Tucker on community supervision for seven years. On
April 11, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Adjudicate. Tucker pleaded not true to the
allegations in the Motion to Adjudicate. The trial court found the allegations to be true,
convicted Tucker of both offenses, and assessed punishment at ten years confinement in
Cause No. 10-18-00234-CR and fifteen years confinement in Cause No. 10-18-00235-CR.
We affirm.
Tucker’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Tucker of his right to submit a brief
on his own behalf. Tucker did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties
required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal
is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Tucker v. State Page 2
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Tucker
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Tucker a copy of our decision, notify Tucker
of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter
certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP.
P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motions granted
Opinion delivered and filed May 22, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]
Tucker v. State Page 3