Opinion
No. 08-15-00313-CR
10-19-2016
NATHANIEL HOUSTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Appeal from the 292nd District Court of Dallas County, Texas (TC# F11-26764-V) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nathaniel Houston appeals his conviction of aggravated sexual assault of a child. A jury found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of twenty-five years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities."); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that she has delivered a copy of counsel's brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and she has advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). Further, counsel provided Appellant with a complete copy of the appellate record. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. October 19, 2016
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish)