Full Opinion

Opinion issued July 30, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00961-CR ——————————— NICHOLAS TAYLOR PARKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1660372 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Nicholas Taylor Parker of murder and assessed a punishment of 45 years in prison. 1 Parker appealed. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. Parker’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 her brief that she 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, Parker’s counsel informed this Court that she mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Parker 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 Parker filed a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief. 2 Subsequently, this Court also notified Parker at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided him with a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 2 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, 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 Patti Sedita must immediately 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 Johnson. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Parker 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