Luis Rivera Castro Jr A/K/A Luis Rivera Jr Castro A/K/A Luis Rivera Castro v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2023
• Docket: 13-23-00219-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-23-00218-CR, 13-23-00219-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

LUIS RIVERA CASTRO JR A/K/A LUIS RIVERA JR CASTRO A/K/A LUIS RIVERA CASTRO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

In appellate cause number 13-23-00219-CR, appellant Luis Rivera Castro Jr a/k/a

Luis Rivera Jr Castro a/k/a Luis Rivera Castro pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by

sexual contact, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1). In

appellate cause number 13-23-00218-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child by sexual contact, both second-

degree felonies. See id. §§ 21.11(a)(1); 22.011(a)(2). Appellant absconded for twenty-

four years before sentencing. After being extradited to Aransas County on May 10, 2023,

the trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years’ incarceration for the indecency with a

child offense in appellate cause number 13-23-00219-CR, twenty years’ incarceration for

the sexual assault of a child offense, and twenty years’ incarceration for the indecency

with a child offense in appellate cause number 13-23-00218-CR. All three sentences are

to run consecutively. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in both

causes stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2 In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that in both causes he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3)

informed appellant of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing

those responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is

frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate

record that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion

within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant did not file a pro se response in either

cause.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in both causes, and we

have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 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.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

3 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel in both causes. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within

five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this

opinion and this Court’s judgments to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a

petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 31st day of August 2023.

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.