                                 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
