Manuel Cuellar v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: 11-24-00141-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed June 5, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-24-00141-CR __________

MANUEL CUELLAR, Appellant CR 80

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court Howard County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16362 CR 80

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Manuel Cuellar, was convicted by a jury of possessing less than one gram of heroin, punishable as a second-degree felony following his pleas of “true” to the enhancement allegations. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(2), 481.115(b) (West Supp. 2024); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(b) (West 2019). The jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and supporting brief in which he assures this court that, after conducting a professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, 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 further certifies that he 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; 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; 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 no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We note that the evidence established that law enforcement stopped Appellant’s vehicle after he failed to properly signal his intention to turn at an intersection. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104 (West 2022). Law enforcement observed in plain view on the driver’s side floorboard a syringe that

1 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2 was later determined to contain 0.68 grams of heroin, a controlled substance in penalty group one. See HEALTH & SAFETY § 481.102(2). Appellant admitted to law enforcement that the substance in the syringe was heroin and testified at trial that he knowingly possessed the heroin. Having found no non-frivolous issues elsewhere in the record, we agree that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

June 5, 2025 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.