IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-18-00266-CR ALEC NAVA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-2080-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Nava entered a plea of guilty to the offense of intoxication assault against an emergency worker and elected to have a jury assess punishment. The jury assessed punishment at 20 years confinement. We affirm.

Nava’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Nava of his right to submit a response on his own behalf. Nava did not file a response. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; 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, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Nava is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nava a copy of our decision, notify Nava of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Nava v. State Page 2 JOHN E. NEILL Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed December 4, 2019 Do not publish [CR25]

Nava v. State Page 3