Opinion
10-22-00145-CR
11-16-2022
CASTULO MANUEL MORENO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-713-C2
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Smith, and Visiting Justice Davis
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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STEVE SMITH JUSTICE
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. 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).
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.
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).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of appellant is granted.
Affirmed.