Ronald Phillip Casillas III v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed July 18, 2024
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-23-00176-CR
    __________
    RONALD PHILLIP CASILLAS, III, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 104th District Court
    Taylor County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 23476-B
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant, Ronald Phillip Casillas, III, entered an open plea of guilty to the
    offense of online solicitation of a minor, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL
    CODE ANN. § 33.021 (West Supp. 2023). Prior to sentencing, the trial court ordered
    a presentence investigation report, and permitted the parties to present punishment
    evidence. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found him guilty, and assessed
    his punishment at confinement for twenty years in the Correctional Institutions
    Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and no fine.
    Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
    court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
    conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
    no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
    the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
    the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
    right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
    file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-
    appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967); Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
     (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
    Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
     (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
    Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
    the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
    the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.1
    Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
    judgment of the trial court.
    W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
    JUSTICE
    July 18, 2024
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
    Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
    1
    We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
    of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-23-00176-CR

Filed Date: 7/18/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/20/2024