COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
NATHANIEL HOUSTON, §
No. 08-15-00313-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
V. 292nd District Court
§
of Dallas County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
(TC# F11-26764-V)
§
Appellee.
§
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(Do Not Publish)
-2-
Nathaniel Houston v. State
Combined Opinion