Marquez Dajuan Tippit v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00150-CR
MARQUEZ DAJUAN TIPPIT,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-24221
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marquez Tippit entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Tippit on
community supervision for seven years and assessed a $100 fine. On March 22, 2018, the
State filed a Motion to Adjudicate and Revoke Community Supervision. Tippit entered
a plea of true to one of the allegations in the State’s Motion to Adjudicate. The trial court
found the allegation to be true, convicted Tippit of the offense of aggravated assault,
found the deadly weapon allegation to be true, and assessed punishment at ten years
confinement. We affirm.
Tippit’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 Tippit of his right to submit a brief on
his own behalf. Tippit 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.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Tippit is
granted. Additionally, counsel must send Tippit a copy of our decision, notify Tippit of
his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter
Tippit v. State Page 2
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.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed October 10, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]
Tippit v. State Page 3