Tyler Keaster v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 20, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-26-00083-CR

__________

TYLER KEASTER Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 42nd District Court Coleman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR25-01044

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tyler Keaster, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2025). Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” and pled “true” to an enhancement paragraph. After the completion of a presentence investigation (PSI)

and a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at eighteen years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

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 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 his right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s 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 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 brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and the brief, and we 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). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

0F

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

(“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment 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.