Full Opinion

Opinion issued August 27, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00811-CR ——————————— LUIS ALBERTO NOLASCO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1848530 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Luis Alberto Nolasco of continuous sexual abuse of a child and assessed a punishment of life in prison. 1 Nolasco appealed. 0F 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02. Nolasco’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Further, Nolasco’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Nolasco and informed him of his right to access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. 2 1F Nolasco did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, 2 Subsequently, this Court also notified Nolasco at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 2 that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney James F. Pons must immediately 2F send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Nolasco of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 3