Damian Cuellar v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00708-CR
Damian Cuellar, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR-12-0380, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant Damian Cuellar of murder, a second-degree felony. See
Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(a), (b)(1), (d) (murder under immediate influence of sudden passion arising
from adequate cause). Punishment was assessed at sixteen years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33
(punishment range for second-degree felony is 20 years maximum and 2 years minimum).
Cuellar’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief
concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988).
Cuellar was served a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine
the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at
766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no
reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents
no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field
Affirmed
Filed: January 24, 2014
Do Not Publish
2