COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00506-CR
JESSE JUNIOR CASTRO APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 09711
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Jesse Junior Castro pleaded guilty to
failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, a third-degree
felony. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102 (West Supp. 2015). In
accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced Castro to
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
ten years’ confinement, suspended and probated the sentence for four years,
and assessed a $500 fine.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision,
alleging that Castro had violated his community-supervision conditions by failing
to make certain payments and failing to report. Castro pleaded not true to the
allegations, and the trial court, after conducting a revocation hearing, found that
the allegations were true and sentenced Castro to ten years’ confinement and
assessed a $500 fine. This appeal followed.
Castro’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet
the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel
notified Castro of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief,
informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right
to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and
took concrete measures to facilitate Castro’s review of the appellate record. See
436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Castro the
opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
2
Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only
then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 23, 2015
3