David Michael Nelson v. the State of Texas

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

No. 02-25-00177-CR
___________________________

DAVID MICHAEL NELSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 367th District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. F17-1250-367

Before Kerr, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION

In exchange for the State’s deferred-adjudication recommendation, David

Nelson agreed to plead guilty to third-degree-felony indecency with a child by

exposure. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(2), (d). The trial court followed the plea

bargain, deferred finding Nelson guilty, and placed him on ten years’

deferred-adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

art. 42A.101(a).

Five-and-a-half years later, the State moved to adjudicate Nelson’s guilt,

alleging that he had violated sixteen community-supervision conditions. Nelson later

pleaded true to violating all sixteen. Based on Nelson’s pleas and the evidence

presented at the hearing, the trial court found that Nelson had violated the terms of

his community supervision as alleged, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to

ten years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.34 (setting forth punishment range

for third-degree felony). Nelson timely appealed.

After determining that Nelson’s appeal is frivolous, his court-appointed

appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with a supporting brief. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s

motion and brief meet Anders’s requirements by professionally evaluating the record

and demonstrating why no arguable grounds for relief exist. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct.

at 1400. Nelson’s counsel also complied with Kelly v. State by (1) providing Nelson

copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and a form motion to access the appellate

2
record and (2) informing him of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further

review should we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We likewise notified Nelson of his opportunity to file a

pro se response, but he did not do so. The State declined to file a brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record

that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

/s/Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice

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

Delivered: June 4, 2026

3