Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00091-CR __________ ELENO SILVA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15561-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Eleno Silva, was charged with sexual assault of a child, a second- degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2026). Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” to the offense as indicted. Following a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a motion for access to the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We observe that prior to entering an open plea, Appellant received written and oral admonishments pursuant to Article 26.13. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2025). Although the court did not admonish Appellant regarding the applicable sex offender registration requirements under Chapter 62, see id. art. 26.13(a)(5), (h), such failure is harmless, and viewing the record as a whole, no substantial right involving Appellant’s decision to plead guilty was affected. See Anderson v. State, 182 S.W.3d 914, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b)); see also Ex parte Afolabi, No. 11-22-00342-CR, 2024 WL 2061266, at *11 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 9, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[A] trial court’s failure to comply with the 2 Article 26.13(a)(5) sex offender registration requirement admonishment does not provide a basis for the defendant to set aside his plea of guilt.”). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE August 13, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1 of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 3