Court Opinion

ID: 4149354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-01 16:16:06.499611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.903467
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-16-00074-CR
                                      12-16-00075-CR
                                      12-16-00076-CR
                                      12-16-00077-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

KEVIN NELSON,                                   §      APPEALS FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Kevin Nelson appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery. 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
       The State charged Appellant with four counts of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the charged offenses, and the trial court placed
Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently
filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. The trial court denied the application, and
amended the terms of Appellant’s community supervision.          The State later filed a second
application. At a hearing on the application, Appellant pleaded “true” to violating the terms of
his community supervision. The trial court granted the State’s application, revoked Appellant’s
community supervision, found Appellant guilty of all four counts of aggravated robbery, and
sentenced Appellant to imprisonment of forty years for each count, to run concurrently.
                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Appellant’s
counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional
defects or reversible error. 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 procedural
history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable issues for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous, 436 S.W.2d
at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).
         Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he complains that he did not receive a fair trial and
that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.           We have considered counsel’s brief and
Appellant’s pro se brief, and conducted an independent review of the appellate records. We have
found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Having concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we
grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
         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 him of his 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, he
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or file a
petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 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;
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 February 28, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          2
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

       3
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 28, 2017

                                         NO. 12-16-00074-CR

                                        KEVIN NELSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1129-14)

                        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
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 28, 2017

                                         NO. 12-16-00075-CR

                                        KEVIN NELSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1130-14)

                        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
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 28, 2017

                                         NO. 12-16-00076-CR

                                        KEVIN NELSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1131-14)

                        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.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 28, 2017

                                         NO. 12-16-00077-CR

                                        KEVIN NELSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1132-14)

                        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.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          FEBRUARY , 2017

                                         NO. 12-16-00074-CR

                                        KEVIN NELSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1129-14)

                        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.