Court Opinion

ID: 4415594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-11 08:48:15.31123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:34.412900
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-18-00693-CR

                                       Badesire BAHINDWA,
                                              Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                     From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2016CR5024
                              Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Sitting:          Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 10, 2019

AFFIRMED

           Badesire Bahindwa pled true to violating the conditions of his deferred adjudication

community supervision. The trial court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to four years’

imprisonment.

           Bahindwa’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of

the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes the

appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Bahindwa with a copy of the brief and informed him of his

right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex.
                                                                                       04-18-00693-CR

App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1996, no pet.). Bahindwa did not file a pro se brief.

       After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will

be appointed. Should Bahindwa wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, Bahindwa must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary

review or Bahindwa must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion;

or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

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.

                                                  Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                                 -2-