Opinion
No. 05-19-00950-CR
05-22-2020
UCHECHUKWU DIOGU UKARIWE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1776605-Q
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Appellant Uchechukwu Diogu Ukariwe appeals the revocation of his community supervision. On July 19, 2018, appellant entered a plea of guilty on the charge of first degree felony aggravated robbery. In accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, entered an order of deferred adjudication that included a deadly weapon finding, and sentenced appellant to seven years' community supervision. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke probation or proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant committed multiple violations of his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion, appellant waived presentation of the motion and entered a plea of true to all but one of the allegations, which the State withdrew. The trial court accepted appellant's plea of true, granted the State's motion, found appellant guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and, pursuant to a plea agreement, sentenced appellant to five years' imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court also made an affirmative finding that the deadly weapon was a firearm. The June 21, 2019 Judgment Adjudicating Guilt erroneously listed the offense for which appellant was convicted as terroristic threat of a public servant. On July 11, 2019, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order that corrected the judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery first degree felony under article 29.03 of the penal code. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190950F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1776605-Q.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-Kipness. Justices Nowell and Evans participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 22nd day of May, 2020.