Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00569-CR
Kristi Rene NIX,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B11614
Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 22, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellant Kristi Rene Nix was indicted for possession of a controlled substance—
methamphetamine less than one gram. She pled guilty to the offense but was placed on three
years’ deferred adjudication probation and ordered to complete outpatient treatment and pay a fine.
After Nix twice tested positive for methamphetamines and twice failed to submit samples for
urinalysis, the State moved to adjudicate Nix’s guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found Nix
failed to comply with three conditions of her community supervision including abstaining from
using a controlled substance. The trial court adjudicated Nix’s guilt, sentenced her to two years’
04-13-00569-CR
confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated her
sentence for two years, and ordered her committed to a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment
Facility (SAFPF). Nix timely filed a notice of appeal.
COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF
Nix’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation
of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel also filed a
motion to withdraw. In appellate counsel’s brief, he recites the relevant facts with citations to the
record, analyzes the record with respect to the evidence supporting the conditions the trial court
found Nix to have violated, and accompanies the analysis with relevant legal authorities. Counsel
concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
We conclude the brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see
also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Nix with a copy of the brief and
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Nix of her right to review the record and file a pro se
brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court also advised Nix of her right to request a copy of
the record and file a brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
APPELLANT’S PRO SE BRIEF
In her pro se brief, Nix argues her prescription medication caused her urinalyses to test
positive for methamphetamines. She also argues she had valid reasons for not submitting samples
for two random drug tests.
-2-
04-13-00569-CR
CONCLUSION
Having reviewing the record, court-appointed counsel’s Anders brief, and Appellant’s pro
se brief, we agree with Nix’s court-appointed appellate counsel that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate
counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this
opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing or 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. Id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Id. R. 68.4.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-