From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Casillas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 18, 2024
No. 11-23-00176-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)

Opinion

11-23-00176-CR

07-18-2024

RONALD PHILLIP CASILLAS, III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23476-B.

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

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.

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.

Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.


Summaries of

Casillas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 18, 2024
No. 11-23-00176-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)
Case details for

Casillas v. State

Case Details

Full title:RONALD PHILLIP CASILLAS, III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

Date published: Jul 18, 2024

Citations

No. 11-23-00176-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)