Domensis Deshawn Nutall v. State

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-09-00209-CR Domensis Deshawn Nutall, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 08-02291-CRF-272 MEMORANDUM Opinion Domensis Deshawn Nutall pled guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain to the offense of sexual assault. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011 (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court sentenced Nutall to 18 years in prison. We affirm. Nutall’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Nutall was informed of the right to file a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief but has not done so. 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, 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.” Anders at 744; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order) (per curiam), disp. on merits, 25 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref'd). 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, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436. An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on “arguable grounds.” Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. After a review of the briefs and 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. Should Nutall wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Nutall must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Nutall must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Glover v. State, No. 06-07-00060-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 9162 (Tex. App.—Texarkana, Nov. 20, 2007, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Nutall is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nutall a copy of our decision, notify Nutall 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. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 21, 2010 Do not publish [CR25] tance of counsel have not been preserved for our review. See Gonzalez, slip op. at 6. Because these complaints were not presented to the trial court, we overrule Rodriguez’ four issues. We, therefore, affirm the judgment. TOM GRAY Justice Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Vance, and Justice Gray Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed July 21, 1999 Publish