Nunez v. State, 06-21-00101-CR

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtCHARLES VAN CLEEF JUSTICE.
PartiesPHILLIP MICHAEL NUNEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Docket Number06-21-00101-CR
Decision Date16 September 2022

PHILLIP MICHAEL NUNEZ, Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 06-21-00101-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

September 16, 2022


Do Not Publish

Date Submitted: August 31, 2022

On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 32289CR

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES VAN CLEEF JUSTICE.

1

In 2019, Phillip Michael Nunez pled guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, to aggravated assault on a family member with a deadly weapon,[1] the adjudication of his guilt was deferred, and he was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. Two and one-half years later, the State filed a motion to revoke Nunez's community supervision and for a final adjudication of his guilt. After a final hearing, in which Nunez pled true to one of the State's allegations, the trial court found four of the State's allegations true, revoked Nunez's community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to thirty years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Nunez's appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Nunez's counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Nunez with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel also informed Nunez of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. On June 28,

2

2022, we notified Nunez that his pro se response was due on or before July 28, 2022. Also, by letter dated August 10, 2022, we notified Nunez that the case would be submitted on briefs on August 31, 2022. We have not received a pro se response from Nunez.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT