Nathaniel Allen Huffman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 07-25-00205-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00205-CR

NATHANIEL ALLEN HUFFMAN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 085497-E-CR, Honorable Timothy G. Pirtle, Presiding

February 4, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Nathaniel Allen Huffman, appeals from a judgment convicting him of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After pleading guilty and true to an

enhancement, he was sentenced to seventeen years in prison. His court-appointed

counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We

modify the judgment and affirm as modified. The facts are straightforward. Appellant was asked to leave a Toot 'n Totum

convenience store because of a history of theft from the business. When asked to leave,

Appellant threatened the assistant manager with a knife and was arrested. He was

charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, pleaded guilty in an open plea,

and pleaded true to a felony enhancement out of Arizona. The trial court sentenced him

to seventeen years in prison.

Counsel’s brief and motion meet Anders’ requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds

for appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.

proceeding). “In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points

of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and

procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” Id.; see also Davis v. State,

683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel also represented that he notified Appellant of the brief and

motion to withdraw, provided copies of both pleadings, informed Appellant of his rights to

file a pro se response and review the record, and provided the appellate record. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter, the Court notified

Appellant of his right to file a response. To date, no response has been received.

We conducted our own independent review of the record to determine the

presence of arguable issues and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2 REFORMATION OF JUDGMENT

This Court has the power to modify the judgment of the court below to make the

record speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Appellate

courts have the power to reform whatever the trial court could have corrected by a

judgment nunc pro tunc where the evidence necessary to correct the judgment appears

in the record. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

In the underlying case, the judgment contains two clerical errors; it does not

reference the enhancement which Appellant pleaded true, and it states Appellant’s right

to appeal is waived. See Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794, 796–98 (Tex. Crim App.

2006) (holding an open plea does not waive an appeal unless it is in exchange for a

recommended sentence). We therefore correct these errors.

CONCLUSION

As reformed, the trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is affirmed and counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.1

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.

1 Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this

opinion and this Court’s judgment to Appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. 3