Nonya Lakisha Smith v. the State of Texas
This text of Nonya Lakisha Smith v. the State of Texas (Nonya Lakisha Smith v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued September 23, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00597-CR ——————————— NONYA LAKISHA SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 488th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1836228
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court found appellant, Nonya Lakisha Smith, guilty of the felony
offense of injury to a child,1 and the trial court assessed her punishment at
confinement for ten years, suspended the sentence, placed her on community
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(3), (f). supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $100. Appellant timely filed a
notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is
without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and
legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and
is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Counsel has informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the
Anders brief and his motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of her
right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.
Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate
record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
2 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that she had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to her counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. 2 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a
response to her counsel’s Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and
the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing reviewing court—
and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal
is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell,
193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by
reviewing entire record). We note that appellant may challenge a holding that there
is no arguable ground for an appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed
counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Tom Abbate must immediately send
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 3 Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeal and that appellant may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3 appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nonya Lakisha Smith v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nonya-lakisha-smith-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.