Court Opinion

ID: 7796381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-01 00:18:44.939193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:27.509495
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-21-00238-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

NAKEARANEY DOMINEKE REESE,                      §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Nakearaney Domineke Reese appeals the trial court’s order revoking her deferred
adjudication community supervision.     Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                         BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the
indictment. She also pleaded “true” to the allegation that a deadly weapon, a knife, was used
during the commission of the offense. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and placed her
on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision,
alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. On November 8, 2021, the
trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion, and Appellant pleaded “true” to all of the
allegations contained in the State’s motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
found that Appellant violated multiple terms and conditions of her community supervision.
Thereafter, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her “guilty”
of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, made an affirmative deadly weapon finding, and
sentenced her to imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed.

                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief has
expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                         2
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered July 29, 2022.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                            JULY 29, 2022

                                        NO. 12-21-00238-CR

                            NAKEARANEY DOMINEKE REESE,
                                      Appellant
                                         V.
                                THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                      Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 7th District Court
                        of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-2043-19)

                   THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.