Scottie Dewayne Nelson v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued December 31, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00287-CR
———————————
SCOTTIE DEWAYNE NELSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1793758

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Scottie DeWayne Nelson was convicted of the second-degree

felony offense of sexual assault of a child under 17 years of age. See TEX. PENAL

CODE § 22.011(a)(2)(A). Based on evidence that Nelson was previously convicted

of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age, the trial court sentenced
him to life imprisonment without parole. See id. § 12.42(c)(4)(A). Nelson timely

filed a notice of appeal.

Nelson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, and therefore

the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the

record and legal authority. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and

that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and the

Anders brief to Nelson, informed him of his right to file a response, and provided

him with a motion to access the appellate record.1 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Nelson did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

1
Additionally, when counsel filed the Anders brief, the Clerk of this Court notified
Nelson of his right to file a pro se response and to receive a copy of the appellate
record.
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and therefore 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) (requiring reviewing court to

determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (stating that reviewing court need not address

merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining that

no arguable grounds for review exist); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant

may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a

petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Paul Morgan 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).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Gunn, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3