Dominic Demetries Nicholson v. The State of Texas — Order

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————
No. 08-25-00117-CR
————————————
Dominic Demetries Nicholson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On Appeal from the 187th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2022CR11860
O R DE R 1
On June 15, 2026, and June 22, 2026, Appellant Dominic Nicholson filed letter-motions
with the Court asking for information regarding his appeal and stating that he could not reach his
1 This case was transferred pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See
Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.

2
court-appointed counsel, Regina Criswell, with whom he had never had contact. Nicholson also
requested that the Court furnish him with a copy of his brief filed in the appeal, if any.
In light of Nicholson’s letter-motions, we issued an order on June 29, 2026, declining to
rule on Nicholson’s requests at that time; stating that Texas attorneys are required keep their clients
informed about their cases, to respond to reasonable requests for information, and to explain
matters that assist a client in making an informed decision about their representation; and ordering
Criswell to file a written response by July 6, 2026, stating, without disclosing the contents of any
communication she had with Nicholson, whether she had communicated with Nicholson and, if
so, when and in what manner, and stating if she had furnished him with a copy of the brief she
filed on his behalf. See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.03 cmt. 4;
see also Ex parte Manuel, 666 S.W.3d 657, 658 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (Slaughter, J.,
concurring) (discussing the importance of counsel’s duty to “keep clients reasonably informed of
any case developments and to effectively communicate with their clients in a manner that permits
the clients to make informed decisions related to their cases”). Criswell did not respond to our
order.
On July 27, 2026, we abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to hold a
hearing to determine whether Criswell had communicated with Nicholson and to determine what
reasons, if any, Criswell had for failing to respond to our order.
On August 10, 2026, Criswell filed an “Appellant Counsel’s Advisory to the Court.” In the
advisory, Criswell stated that she had not been able to locate Nicholson in custody at the time she
filed her brief, that she attempted to provide a copy of the brief to him after being told of his
location in February 2026, that she did not respond to our July 6, 2026 order, that she “didn’t see
the Court’s email notice and didn’t calendar the deadline to respond,” that her husband had been

3
hospitalized at the end of July, that she does not know if Nicholson received the mail she sent him,
that it appeared Nicholson was no longer in the location where she addressed the documents she
mailed him, that she sent the briefs to him again at a different address, and that it appeared
Nicholson may not still be in the location to which she addressed the briefs in her second mailing.
On August 11, 2026, we reinstated the appeal based on Criswell’s advisory. But we also
ordered Criswell to mail the briefs to Nicholson at his then-current address, to mail a copy of the
advisory she filed with this Court to Nicholson, to arrange a telephone call with Nicholson to
discuss the appeal with him, and to provide a written certification to the Court by August 31, 2026,
that she had complied with the provisions of the order.
Criswell failed to provide any certification to this Court. Nevertheless, on August 20, 2026,
the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing a letter by Criswell to Nicholson,
which letter indicates that she was providing him with copies of the briefs in this case. The letter
was dated August 17, 2026, and was address to Nicholson at the Holliday Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).
Subsequently, on August 26, 2026, the Court received a letter from Nicholson. In the letter,
which was dated August 17, 2026, Nicholson provided the Court with his new address, in
Woodville, Texas—at the Gib Lewis Unit of TDCJ.
Because Criswell had not provided the written certification to this Court; Criswell had not
indicated that she had spoken with Nicholson on the telephone; and Nicholson had mailed a letter
to this Court, providing us with his new address, dated on the same day that Criswell mailed her
letter to Nicholson at his old address—meaning that Nicholson likely did not receive Criswell’s
letter or the enclosed briefs—we issued an order on September 23, 2026, once again ordering
Criswell to mail the briefs to Nicholson at his new address, to arrange a telephone call with him,

4
and to provide a written certification to this Court, by October 8, 2026, stating that she had
complied with our order.
Criswell has not responded to our September 23, 2026 order.
Accordingly, we ABATE this appeal and REMAND this case to the trial court. On remand,
the trial court shall hold a hearing, within 60 days of the date of this order, at which Nicholson,
Criswell, and a representative of the State shall be present in person. No extensions of time for the
hearing will be granted.
We ORDER Criswell to bring a copy of each brief filed in this case and a copy of the
advisory she filed with this Court to the hearing in the trial court. At the hearing, the trial court
shall:
1. 	Have Criswell provide Nicholson with the copies of the briefs and of the advisory she
filed with this Court on the record in open court;
2. 	Provide Criswell with an opportunity to speak with Nicholson, in private, about this
appeal and the status of the appellate proceeding;
3. 	Determine what reasons Criswell has, if any, for failing to comply with this Court’s
August 11, 2026 and September 23, 2026 orders;
4. 	Determine whether Criswell has previously communicated with Nicholson;
5. 	If counsel has previously communicated with Nicholson, determine when counsel
communicated with him and in what manner; and
6. 	If counsel has not communicated with Nicholson, determine what efforts counsel made
to communicate with him, if any, and what reasons counsel has for failing to
communicate with him, if any.
If counsel has communicated with Nicholson, counsel shall not divulge the contents of any
communication protected by attorney-client privilege; the trial court shall merely determine
whether, when, and how counsel has communicated with Nicholson, not the contents of their
conversations, if any.

5
We ORDER the trial court to make written findings of fact and any relevant conclusions
of law related to its determinations as described above. We ORDER the trial court clerk to file a
supplemental clerk’s record with this Court, no later than seven days after the hearing, containing
the trial court’s written findings. We ORDER the court reporter to file a transcript of the hearing
in the trial court within seven days after the date on which the hearing is held.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October 2026.
PER CURIAM
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.