Brian Eduardo Nelson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00448-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00448-CR __________________

BRIAN EDUARDO NELSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-08-12559 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Brian Eduardo Nelson (“Appellant” or

“Nelson”) for assault family violence impeding breath or circulation enhanced by a

prior conviction for assault family violence, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 22.01(b-3). Nelson pleaded “not guilty” to the offense. The jury found

Nelson guilty of the offense, and sentenced Nelson to twenty years of confinement.

Nelson timely filed an appeal.

1 On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Nelson to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Nelson.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found

none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Nelson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on May 29, 2026 Opinion Delivered June 3, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.