Alec Nava v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00266-CR
ALEC NAVA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-2080-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alex Nava entered a plea of guilty to the offense of intoxication assault against
an emergency worker and elected to have a jury assess punishment. The jury assessed
punishment at 20 years confinement. We affirm.
Nava’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 Nava of his right to submit a
response on his own behalf. Nava did not file a response. 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 744; 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 judgment.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Nava is
granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nava a copy of our decision, notify Nava 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.
Nava v. State Page 2
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed December 4, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]
Nava v. State Page 3