Ramona Llanez Delgadillo v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 20, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

Nos. 11-25-00353-CR & 11-25-00354-CR

__________

RAMONA LLANEZ DELGADILLO, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. C-23-0588-CR & C-23-0589-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ramona Llanez Delgadillo, was indicted in trial court cause no. C-

23-0588-CR for the offense of felony driving while intoxicated and in trial court cause no. C-23-0589-CR for the offense of tampering with evidence, both thirddegree felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 37.09(c), 49.09 (West Supp. 2025). The offenses were each enhanced by two prior felony convictions. PENAL

2

§ 12.42(d). In a consolidated trial, a jury convicted Appellant of each offense, found the enhancements “true,” and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for life in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in trial court cause number C-23-0588-CR and twenty-five years’ imprisonment in trial court cause number C-23-0589-CR. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentences imposed be served concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this court, supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable grounds 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 copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to (1) object to counsel’s motions, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders briefs, and (4) 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 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and the briefs, and we conclude that the appeals are without merit. 1 0F See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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.

3

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

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

August 20, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.