Nicholas Sebolt v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 11, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00312-CR
__________

NICHOLAS SEBOLT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-23-1481-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant, Nicholas Sebolt, guilty of murder and assessed his
punishment at imprisonment for sixty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(2) (West
Supp. 2025).
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to
review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and 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, proceeding pro se, filed two documents that we collectively
consider to be his response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief
and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine whether: (1) the appeal
is wholly frivolous and, if so, issue an opinion explaining that it has independently
reviewed the record and finds no reversible error; or (2) arguable grounds for appeal
exist and, if so, remand the cause to the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel
to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and
Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, the brief, and Appellant’s
response, and conclude that the appeal is without merit. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27 & n.6.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
1

Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

June 11, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3