eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-04

Nathan Fought v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00086-CR
Nathan FOUGHT,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018CR10858
Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding
Opinion by:      Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting:         Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 29, 2020
AFFIRMED
Appellant Nathan John Fought was charged with possession of a controlled substance
within 1,000 feet of a playground, a felony. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Fought was placed on
deferred adjudication community supervision which required residential substance abuse
treatment. He violated probation, and the State filed a motion to revoke. Fought pleaded true to
the violation. The trial court sentenced him to two years with the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice.
04-19-00086-CR
Fought’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he raises no arguable issues and concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807 
    (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), and In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV,
    2018 WL 6624409 
    (Tex. App.––San
Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.) (en banc). Counsel provided proof Fought was given: (1) a copy
of the brief, (2) a copy of the motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion to allow him to request the
appellate record. Counsel also informed Fought of his right to file his own brief. Fought sent a
letter on his own behalf complaining of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire
record and: (1) determine the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion stating there is no
reversible error, or (2) determine there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion
remanding the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State,
    300 S.W.3d 763
    , 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se
only after any arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Fought’s letter. We find no
reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See
    id. We therefore 
    grant the
motion to withdraw filed by Fought’s appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See
id.; Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State,
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Fought wish to seek further review of this
case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review.           Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered
-2-
04-19-00086-CR
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See
    id. R. 68.3. 
    Any petition for
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See
    id. R. 68.4. 
    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Do not publish
-3-