Nicodia Davis v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-18-00426-CR __________________ NICODIA DAVIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-18777 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Nicodia Davis pleaded guilty to felony forgery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2018).1 The trial court found Davis guilty, deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Davis on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed 1 We cite current statutes as amendments after Davis’s offense do not affect our disposition. 1 a motion to revoke Davis’s community supervision alleging five violations of his terms of community supervision. Davis pleaded “true” to two of the alleged violations of the terms of the community supervision order, and after a hearing, the trial court also found the evidence sufficient to find that Davis committed the offense of terroristic threat in violation of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Davis violated three of the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Davis’s community supervision, and found him guilty of the underlying offense. After a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed four years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division. Davis filed a notice of appeal. Davis’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, and he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Davis of his right to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response from Davis. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have independently 2 examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); see also Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, because the trial court failed to include in the judgment that it found count three “true,” we modify the “Findings as to Allegations in Motion to Adjudicate” portion of the trial court’s written judgment by deleting “True to count(s) 4 & 5” and insert “True to count(s) 3, 4 & 5[.]” See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noting courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 2 Davis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on August 14, 2019 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
