Kenneth Len Cato v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 7, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-24-00171-CR

__________

KENNETH LEN CATO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court Nolan County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14532

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kenneth Len Cato, entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2024). The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea and permitted the parties to present punishment evidence at a separate sentencing

2

hearing. The State presented the testimony of the victim and two law enforcement witnesses, then five witnesses testified for Appellant. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and a fine of $1,000. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied following a hearing.

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 (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 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, 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 we agree 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).

1 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3

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

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

August 7, 2025 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.