Mano P. Navarasasingam v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00300-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-25-00300-CR ___________________________

MANO P. NAVARASASINGAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1705798

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

In September 2024, Appellant Mano P. Navarasasingam pleaded guilty to the

first-degree felony offense of promotion of prostitution of a person younger than

18 years of age, and the trial court placed him on 7 years’ deferred adjudication

community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.053; Tex. Penal Code

§ 43.03(b)(2).

In May 2025, the State filed its first amended petition to adjudicate, alleging

Navarasasingam had violated conditions of his community supervision by committing

a new offense, failing to report to his supervision officer as directed, and submitting a

fraudulent record of community service restitution hours. At a hearing on August 15,

2025, the State waived the first allegation and Navarasasingam pleaded true to the

second allegation and not true to the third allegation. After an evidentiary hearing, the

trial court found the second allegation “true” and the third “not true,” adjudicated his

guilt in the underlying offense, and sentenced him to 10 years’ confinement. See Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.053; Tex. Penal Code § 12.34. Navarasasingam appealed.

Navarasasingam’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion, stating that the appeal

presents no arguable points. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

1400 (1967). We agree. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds for relief. See id. In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified

2 Navarasasingam of the motion to withdraw, provided him with a copy of the brief,

informed him of his right to file a pro se response, took concrete measures to facilitate

Navarasasingam’s review of the appellate record, and informed him of his right to seek

discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

This court afforded Navarasasingam an opportunity to file a pro se response, but

he has not done so. The State filed a letter in lieu of a brief declining to formally respond

but agreeing with Navarasasingam’s counsel that the appeal contained no arguable

points.

We have independently examined the record, as is our duty when appointed

counsel files an Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). After carefully

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals nothing

further that might arguably support an appeal. See Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684,

685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28.

Accordingly, we grant Navarasasingam’s attorney’s motion to withdraw, and we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

3 /s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice

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

Delivered: June 25, 2026