Nico Quint v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00027-CR
10-25-00028-CR

Nico Quint,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas
Judge Trent D. Farrell, presiding
Trial Court Cause Nos. 21-26956, 22-27189

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 20, 2021, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Nico

Quint pled guilty to the third-degree felony offense of assault family violence

by occlusion in cause number 21-26956. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §

22.01(b)(2)(B). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed

Quint on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years. On

June 1, 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement in cause number 22-27189,
Quint pled guilty to the third-degree felony offense of deadly conduct by

discharging a firearm. See id. at § 22.05(b). The trial court found him guilty,

but suspended his sentence and placed him on community supervision for a

term of ten years.

On March 20, 2023, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke

Quint’s community supervision in cause number 21-26956 and a motion to

revoke his community supervision in cause number 22-27189. The trial court

subsequently held a consolidated hearing on the State’s motions. At the

hearing, Quint pled “true” to all of the State’s allegations in each motion. After

a contested hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Quint to three

years in prison in cause number 21-26956 and to seven years in prison in cause

number 22-27189, to run concurrently. These appeals followed.

Quint’s appointed appellate counsel has now filed motions to withdraw

and Anders briefs in support of the motions in each case, asserting that he has

diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, both appeals

are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400,

18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s briefs demonstrate a professional evaluation

of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed

counsel. As such, we conclude that counsel has performed the duties required

of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v.

Nico Quint v. The State of Texas Page 2
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). By letter, we informed Quint of his right to review

the appellate record and to file a pro se response. Quint did not file a response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all

the proceedings . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct.

346, 351, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); 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, 438 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a

review of the entire record in these appeals, we conclude that they are wholly

frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in each case.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation of Quint are granted.

STEVE SMITH
Justice

Nico Quint v. The State of Texas Page 3
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 3, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed; Motions granted
Do not publish
CR25

Nico Quint v. The State of Texas Page 4