Akeam Marsay Nichols v. State

Opinion

NO. 07-11-00281-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 13, 2012

AKEAM MARSAY NICHOLS, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 61,691-D; HONORABLE DON R. EMERSON, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Akeam Marsay Nichols, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of

unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon1 and sentenced to ten years in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. However, the

imposition of the term of confinement was suspended and appellant was placed on

community supervision for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion

and an amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. Appellant

entered an open plea of “True” to the amended motion to revoke his community

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(1) (West 2011). supervision. After finding the allegations contained in the amended motion to revoke

were true, the trial court heard evidence on the issue of the proper sentence. The trial

court then sentenced appellant to serve the original term of ten years confinement in the

ID-TDCJ. Appellant perfected his appeal. We affirm.

Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling

authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has

certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to

withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this

matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a

response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an

appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824

2 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with

counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s

judgment is affirmed. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not publish.

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.