Court Opinion

ID: 9956006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-30 09:15:45.605885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:03.271690
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00147-CR

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                  TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                            TYLER, TEXAS

 NAKEYTA SHARNS NORRIS,                                 §     APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                                     §     JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                               §     NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM

       Nakeyta Sharns Norris appeals her conviction for evading arrest or detention with a motor
vehicle. 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 indicted for the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention
with a motor vehicle. 1 The indictment also contained an enhancement paragraph alleging that she
had a prior conviction, elevating her punishment level to that of a second-degree felony with a
punishment range between two and twenty years of imprisonment. 2 She pleaded “not guilty” to
the offense and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
       The evidence admitted at trial showed that Appellant was at a Family Dollar store when a
manager noticed her attempt to steal items for sale. The manager confronted Appellant, who

       1
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04 (West 2016).
       2
           See id. §§ 12.33(a), 12.42(a) (West 2019).
threatened to assault her. Appellant thereafter left the store. The manager observed Appellant’s
vehicle and called the authorities.
       Shortly thereafter, Nacogdoches Police Department Officer Nathan Jessup saw a vehicle
in the area matching the description provided by the store manager. He activated his emergency
lights and siren. Nevertheless, Appellant passed several potential businesses and parking lots
without stopping. Officer Jessup testified that Appellant drove slowly, looked in her rearview
mirror several times, and knew that Officer Jessup attempted to stop her. Officer Jessup also
testified he saw Appellant moving items in or near the vehicle’s console area while driving.
       Officer Jessup testified Appellant finally stopped. He approached Appellant’s vehicle from
the driver’s side. He asked Appellant to exit the vehicle multiple times, but she did not comply
with his requests. The driver’s side window was cracked, so eventually Officer Jessup reached
into the vehicle to press the door’s unlock button. Though he was successful in unlocking the
door, Appellant attempted to roll his arm up in the window, and held the door shut to prevent him
from opening it. The officer reached into the window again and grabbed Appellant’s wrist, who
said, “Okay. I’ll get out.” However, she did not exit the vehicle. Instead, she grabbed her keys
and started the vehicle. Officer Jessup jumped on the vehicle’s running boards and prevented
Appellant from driving away, but the vehicle was still in gear and rolled forward ten to fifteen feet.
Officer Jessup struggled with Appellant to extricate her out of the vehicle, and she continued to
resist until he was finally able to subdue her until backup arrived. After other officers arrived, they
were able to handcuff Appellant and take her into custody. The trial court admitted the body
camera exhibits from the officers, which confirmed Officer Jessup’s testimony.
       The jury found Appellant “guilty” of the offense. Appellant pleaded “true” to the
enhancement paragraph.       At the ensuing punishment hearing, the State submitted several
judgments evidencing Appellant’s extensive criminal history without objection. Ultimately, the
jury sentenced Appellant to six years of imprisonment. 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 he 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. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In

                                                  2
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. 3
We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and 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, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 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 either the date of 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 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 March 28, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         3
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his 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 was filed.

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                           MARCH 28, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00147-CR

                                  NAKEYTA SHARNS NORRIS,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                          Appellee

                                Appeal from the 420th District Court
                      of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F2125354)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.