Florencio Castillo Guillen v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00393-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00393-CR ________________

FLORENCIO CASTILLO GUILLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCCR0324 ______________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Florencio Castillo Guillen guilty of the first-degree

felony offense of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (c). The jury

assessed Guillen’s punishment at fifty years of imprisonment.

Guillen’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

1 Crim. App. 1978). On March 6, 2025, we granted an extension of time for Guillen

to file a pro se brief, but Guillen did not file a response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on June 9, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 25, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Guillen may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1 2