Nico Quint v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00027-CR

10-25-00028-CR

Nico Quint,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

On appeal from the

52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas Judge Trent D. Farrell, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 21-26956, 22-27189

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 20, 2021, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Nico Quint pled guilty to the third-degree felony offense of assault family violence by occlusion in cause number 21-26956. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Quint on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. On June 1, 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement in cause number 22-27189,

Quint pled guilty to the third-degree felony offense of deadly conduct by discharging a firearm. See id. at § 22.05(b). The trial court found him guilty, but suspended his sentence and placed him on community supervision for a term of ten years.

On March 20, 2023, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke Quint’s community supervision in cause number 21-26956 and a motion to revoke his community supervision in cause number 22-27189. The trial court subsequently held a consolidated hearing on the State’s motions. At the hearing, Quint pled “true” to all of the State’s allegations in each motion. After a contested hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Quint to three years in prison in cause number 21-26956 and to seven years in prison in cause number 22-27189, to run concurrently. These appeals followed.

Quint’s appointed appellate counsel has now filed motions to withdraw and Anders briefs in support of the motions in each case, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, both appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s briefs demonstrate a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. As such, we conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v.

3

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). By letter, we informed Quint of his right to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response. Quint did not file a response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in these appeals, we conclude that they are wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in each case.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation of Quint are granted.

STEVE SMITH

Justice

4

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 3, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motions granted Do not publish CR25