Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas

Tex. App. Ct., 11th Dist. (Eastland)

Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)

DecidedJuly 2, 2026

Docket11-24-00313-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas (Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed July 2, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00313-CR __________

AARON OLIVARES DURAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR59525

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Aaron Olivares Duran, entered an open plea of guilty to murder, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b), (c) (West Supp. 2025). The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and found him guilty. Following the punishment hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for thirty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 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. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742– 44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; 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 likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY July 2, 2026 CHIEF JUSTICE Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion filed July 2, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00313-CR __________

AARON OLIVARES DURAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR59525

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Aaron Olivares Duran, entered an open plea of guilty to murder, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b), (c) (West Supp. 2025). The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and found him guilty. Following the punishment hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for thirty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 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. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742– 44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; 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 likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY July 2, 2026 CHIEF JUSTICE Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aaron Olivares Duran v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-olivares-duran-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp11-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack