Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1998

Genovevo Castillo v. State

Genovevo Castillo v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided October 7, 1998

Genovevo Castillo v. State

Opinion

Genovevo Castillo v. The State of Texas






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-97-380-CR


     GENOVEVO CASTILLO,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee


From the Criminal District Court Two

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court # 0601763D

                                                                                                                

O P I N I O N

                                                                                                                

     On September 16, 1997, the appellant, Genovevo Castillo, pled guilty before a jury to the offense of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11(a) (Vernon 1994). The jury assessed a punishment of twelve years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 12.33 (Vernon 1994). Castillo filed a pro-se notice of appeal and was subsequently appointed counsel.

      Castillo’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, order) (discussing procedures for Anders appeal, revisiting Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref’d)). Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error. We have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied that counsel has thoroughly searched the record for any arguable appellate claim. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1904, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have determined that counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Id.

      Counsel advised Castillo that he had the right to review the record and to file a pro-se response on his own behalf. Despite being provided an opportunity to review the record by the Tarrant County District Clerk, Castillo has not filed a response. See Wilson, 955 S.W.2d at 698. Thus, because we have no viable points of error to consider, the judgment is affirmed.

      We simultaneously grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Id.

 

                                                                         BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

                                                                         Justice



Before Chief Justice Davis,

           Justice Cummings, and

           Justice Vance

Affirmed; Motion to withdraw granted

Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 1998

Do not publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.