In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00153-CR
___________________________
CHRISTIAN CASTILLO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 362nd District Court
Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. F18-127-362
Before Bassel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Christian Castillo pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense
of theft without the benefit of a plea bargain, and the trial court held a hearing and
sentenced him to 12 years’ confinement. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a),
(e)(6)(A); see also id. § 12.33 (stating that second-degree felony punishment range is 2
to 20 years and up to a $10,000 fine). The trial court imposed the sentence on August
28, 2020, and also signed a judgment on that date. No postjudgment motions were
filed.
On October 8, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment nunc pro tunc that
added the incident number and supplied the date on which the sentence was to
commence. On October 30, 2020, Castillo perfected an appeal solely from the
judgment nunc pro tunc. See Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 904 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012) (stating that “[b]ecause nunc pro tunc judgments are appealable orders, the thirty-
day filing period started the [day after the judgment nunc pro tunc was signed]” and
concluding that appellant’s “appeal applies only to issues arising from the entry of the
third nunc pro tunc judgment; it is not an appeal of the conviction or the validity of the
plea bargain”).
Castillo’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in her
professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),
2
by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11
& n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Castillo of her motion to
withdraw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and brief; (3) informed him of
his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his pro se right to seek
discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous; and (5) took concrete
measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Castillo the opportunity to file a
response on his own behalf, but he did not do so. The State filed a letter stating that
it would not be filing a brief.
After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the
ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is
obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any
arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
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 counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We agree
with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the appellate record that arguably might support this appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685
3
n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment nunc pro tunc. See Tutson v. State, No. 07-19-00006-
CR, 2019 WL 2998808, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 9, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: July 8, 2021
4
Christian Castillo v. the State of Texas
Combined Opinion