Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the
citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated —
it is what the later court actually wrote.
Gustavo Perez Sr. v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court…
Douglas Lawhon v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…lacking only his signature, and informed him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals if he does not receive relief from this court. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Lawhon an opportunity to file a pro se response, but he has not done so.2 In lieu of a brief, the State filed a letter stating that it agreed with appellate counsel’s determ…
Kristine Ann Ellington v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…cking only her signature, and informed her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals if she does not receive relief from this court. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Ellington filed a pro se response to the Anders brief, but her response does not reveal any legitimate grounds for direct appeal.2 In lieu of a brief, the State filed a letter stating that it ag…
Mano P. Navarasasingam v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
The citation is in this opinion but falls in a part of the document the text extractor could not reach — a table, a footnote, or an image. Recorded as uncovered rather than dropped.
Oswaldo Ayalamelendez v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…s a clerical, not a substantive, error that does not impact the analysis. 4 review pro se should this court declare his appeals frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel also provided Appellant with form motions for pro se access to the appellate record, which Appellant used and which we granted. See id. Although given an opportunity to respond to couns…
Emily Ann Hutchins v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing…
Felipa Rubio v. the State of Texas2026-06-25
…2 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing…
Oscar Martinez v. the State of Texas2026-06-24
…eal. See id. Counsel has provided Martinez with copies of the brief, his motion to withdraw as counsel, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). He has also informed Martinez of…
Trevor Dallas Blankenship v. the State of Texas2026-06-18
…dditionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Blankenship with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, as well as a form request for the appellate records. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). He also certified to this court that he informed Blankenship of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should this court agree t…
Arturo Xavier Corona v. the State of Texas2026-06-11
…o 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 outline…
Nicholas Sebolt v. the State of Texas2026-06-11
…o 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, proceeding pro se, filed two documents that we collectively consider to be his response…
Devon Dinger v. the State of Texas2026-06-11
…tion to withdraw and informed him of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel also provided Dinger with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See id. Although given an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, Dinger has…
Kaley Brynn Johnston v. the State of Texas2026-06-11
…1967). See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 2 Counsel also complied with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 1 We sent Johnston a letter informing her that her court-appointed counsel had filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief and that if she wished to file a pro se response to coun…
Noe Olmos v. the State of Texas2026-06-11
…tion to withdraw and informed him of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 2014). Counsel also provided Olmos with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See id. at 319–20. Although given an opportunity to file…
Caleb Michael Leutzinger v. the State of Texas2026-06-10
The citation is in this opinion but falls in a part of the document the text extractor could not reach — a table, a footnote, or an image. Recorded as uncovered rather than dropped.
Joe Starks, Jr. v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…o 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 filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief and a pr…
Jayson MacE Thiebaud v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…lude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is w…
Zacimbricc Dizhay White v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…o 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 outli…
David Michael Nelson v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…2 record and (2) informing him of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review should we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We likewise notified Nelson of his opportunity to file a pro se response, but he did not do so. The State declined to file a brief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s bri…
Kellian Antonio Jones v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
The citation is in this opinion but falls in a part of the document the text extractor could not reach — a table, a footnote, or an image. Recorded as uncovered rather than dropped.
Alexandra Renee Mireles v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing…
Michael Gonzales A/K/A Michael Gerard Gonzales v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 2 reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellan…
Analiyah Marie Gonzales v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…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 pro se responses to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following the procedures outline…
Ashley Dawn Hamilton v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…o 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 outli…
Edmundo Jr Santillan v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…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 outline…
Richard Santa Ana v. the State of Texas2026-06-04
…appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with this Court. Previously, we granted the motion and directed the clerk of the trial court to provide a copy…