IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00145-CR

CASTULO MANUEL MORENO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-713-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Castulo Manuel Moreno, was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of 

a young child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. A jury assessed 

punishment at life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. We affirm.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in 

support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and 
Moreno v. State Page 2

that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the 

record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude 

that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel.1 See id. at 744, 87 S. 

Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 

436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the 

proceedings . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 

S. Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. 

Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After 

a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly 

frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

1 On August 15, 2022, appellant filed a motion to access the appellate record. On August 17, 2022, 

we ordered appellate counsel to provide appellant with a copy of the appellate record and to notify this 

Court of when the appellate record was provided. We also informed appellant that his pro se response 

would be due within thirty days of when appellate counsel notified this Court that the appellate record 

had been forwarded to appellant. On August 23, 2022, appellate counsel notified this Court that he had 

sent appellant a copy of the appellate record. More than thirty days have passed, and appellant has not 

filed a pro se response in this matter.
Moreno v. State Page 3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Counsel’s motion to

withdraw from representation of appellant is granted.

 

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Smith, and

Visiting Justice Davis2

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 16, 2022

Do not publish

[CRPM]

2 The Honorable Rex Davis, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of 

the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.