Ronald Phillip Casillas III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 11-23-00176-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00176-CR __________

RONALD PHILLIP CASILLAS, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23476-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ronald Phillip Casillas, III, entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of online solicitation of a minor, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 33.021 (West Supp. 2023). Prior to sentencing, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation report, and permitted the parties to present punishment evidence. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found him guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and no fine. 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. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the 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 v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); 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 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

July 18, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2