Kaleb Nix v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: April 30, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00059-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00059-CR ___________________________

KALEB NIX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1781937

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

After investigators uncovered evidence of Kaleb Nix’s possession of a

prodigious amount of child pornography depicting Nix performing sexual acts on

children as young as toddlers, Nix pleaded guilty to one count of continuous sexual

abuse of a child under 14. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02. The trial court assessed

his punishment at life in prison and sentenced him accordingly. Nix timely appealed.

Nix’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a

supporting brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400

(1967), representing that he has reviewed the appellate record and “that there are no

non-frivolous legal issues” to be raised on Nix’s behalf. These filings meet the

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

Counsel has also complied with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), by providing a copy of the Anders brief and

motion to withdraw to Nix and informing Nix by certified mail of the following: (1)

his rights to obtain the appellate record and to file a pro se response; and (2) his right

to file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals should this

court affirm the trial court’s judgment and the deadline by which to do so. Although

he requested a copy of the appellate record––which the trial court provided––Nix has

not filed a pro se response.

2 After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel fulfills Anders’s requirements, this

court must independently examine the record for any arguable ground that could be

raised. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then

may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83,

109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully reviewing the appellate record and

counsel’s brief,1 we agree that––but for a correction to the judgment2––the appeal is

wholly without merit; we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal.

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

The judgment error results from an inconsistency between the trial court’s oral

pronouncement of an authorized sentence and the written judgment’s recitation of

the sentence imposed. The trial court orally pronounced Nix’s punishment as

confinement for life. But the judgment lists Nix’s punishment incorrectly as life

without parole. See e.g., Smith v. State, No. 14-24-00149-CR, 2026 WL 468007, at *5

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2026, pet. filed) (citing cases holding the

same and also explaining that while parole is not available for this offense––practically

speaking––because of applicable parole laws, the Penal Code does not authorize life

1 The State agrees that Nix “has no meritorious grounds upon which to advance an appeal in this case.” 2 We caution appointed appellate counsel that review of the entire record for Anders purposes includes a rigorous review of the trial court’s judgment to determine whether it contains any errors that require modification.

3 without parole as a sentence for this particular offense);3 Sosa v. State, No. 05-19-

00868-CR, 2021 WL 1084639, at *6–7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2021, pet. ref’d)

(mem. op, not designated for publication) (same); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 21.02(h) (“An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree, punishable by

imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life, or for any term of

not more than 99 years or less than 2 years.”), § 12.31(a)(2) (describing life without

parole as sentence option for capital offense), § 12.42(c)(4) (describing conditions

required for life without parole sentence only for offense under Penal Code Section

22.021), § 71.02(b)(1) (describing when life without parole sentence is authorized for

engaging in organized criminal activity conviction); Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 508.145(a)(2) (providing that an inmate is not eligible for release on parole if

serving a sentence for a Section 21.02 offense).

Even when affirming a judgment after the filing of an Anders brief, we may

correct judgment errors to make the judgment comport with the trial court record.

See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en

banc). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment so that next to “Punishment

and Place of Confinement” it reads “LIFE–TDCJ: Confinement.”

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

3 In addition, because this sentence runs consecutively to a lengthy federal sentence, the practical effect is the same as life without parole.

4 /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 30, 2026