Roberto Misael Acosta-Lemuz v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 22, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-24-00103-CR __________ ROBERTO MISAEL ACOSTA-LEMUZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 30360-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Roberto Misael Acosta-Lemuz, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (West 2019). In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea, the State agreed to a punishment cap of twenty-five years’ imprisonment; there was no further agreement between the parties regarding a recommended sentence. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and ordered a presentence investigation report to be prepared. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

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. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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 a copy of 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, 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 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 likewise conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

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

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

May 22, 2025 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.