Timothy Wayne Queen v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 6, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-25-00156-CR

__________

TIMOTHY WAYNE QUEEN, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 70th District Court Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. A-23-1391-CR, A-23-1392-CR, & A-23-1393-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Timothy Wayne Queen, was indicted in three separate cause numbers for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a young child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b) (West 2026). In a consolidated trial, a jury convicted Appellant of each offense and assessed his punishment for each conviction at imprisonment for life in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentences imposed be served consecutively. We affirm.

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

Appellant did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the brief and the record, and we likewise conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826– 27.

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. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

August 6, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.