Anthony Schultz, a former educator, was convicted on six second-degree felony counts following a jury trial that commenced September 24, 2025. The charges included two counts of sexual assault of a child, three counts of improper relationship between educator and student, and one count of solicitation of prostitution with a person under eighteen years of age. The jury sentenced Schultz to concurrent terms ranging from 10 to 20 years in prison, with the sexual assault counts carrying the maximum 20-year sentences.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Justice L. Aron Peña Jr., joined by Justices Silva and Fonseca, found no reversible error warranting appeal after conducting the required independent review. As Justice Peña explained, the court's examination revealed that 'counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.'
The court emphasized the thoroughness of both counsel's review and its own independent analysis, noting that 'we have reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.' This conclusion came after Schultz's court-appointed appellate counsel filed what is known as an Anders brief, a specialized pleading used when defense counsel cannot identify any meritorious grounds for appeal.
The case originated in the 94th District Court of Nueces County, where Schultz was re-indicted on April 17, 2025. He pleaded not guilty to all charges, but the jury found him guilty on all six counts after the September trial. The procedural history shows that this was actually a re-indictment, suggesting earlier charges may have been dismissed or amended, though the appellate opinion does not detail the original charges.
Schultz's appellate counsel properly followed Anders procedures by notifying him of the brief's filing, providing him copies of all pleadings, informing him of his right to file a pro se response, and offering him access to the appellate record. Justice Peña noted that the counsel 'provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant's signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days.' However, Schultz chose not to file any response or request access to the record.
The unanimous appellate panel also granted counsel's motion to withdraw, as is standard practice when an Anders brief is accepted. Under Texas appellate procedure, the court cannot simply accept counsel's representation that no appeal exists—it must conduct its own 'full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous,' as Justice Peña wrote, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Schultz retains the right to seek further review by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days, though he would need to either retain private counsel or proceed pro se. The appellate court's opinion was designated as unpublished under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(b), meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases.