Castulo Manuel Moreno v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00145-CR
CASTULO MANUEL MORENO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020-713-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Castulo Manuel Moreno, was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of
a young child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. A jury assessed
punishment at life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. We affirm.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the
record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude
that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel.1 See id. at 744, 87 S.
Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the
proceedings . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
S. Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After
a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly
frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
1 On August 15, 2022, appellant filed a motion to access the appellate record. On August 17, 2022,
we ordered appellate counsel to provide appellant with a copy of the appellate record and to notify this
Court of when the appellate record was provided. We also informed appellant that his pro se response
would be due within thirty days of when appellate counsel notified this Court that the appellate record
had been forwarded to appellant. On August 23, 2022, appellate counsel notified this Court that he had
sent appellant a copy of the appellate record. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not
filed a pro se response in this matter.
Moreno v. State Page 2
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw from representation of appellant is granted.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Smith, and
Visiting Justice Davis2
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 16, 2022
Do not publish
[CRPM]
2 The Honorable Rex Davis, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of
the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
Moreno v. State Page 3