Court Opinion

ID: 2958946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-17 03:09:40.045612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:56.724406
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-12-00708-CR

                                   Damian Cuellar, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
         NO. CR-12-0380, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               A jury convicted appellant Damian Cuellar of murder, a second-degree felony. See

Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(a), (b)(1), (d) (murder under immediate influence of sudden passion arising

from adequate cause). Punishment was assessed at sixteen years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33

(punishment range for second-degree felony is 20 years maximum and 2 years minimum).

               Cuellar’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988).
               Cuellar was served a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine

the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at

766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.

               We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no

reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents

no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                                      ____________________________________________
                                      J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Affirmed

Filed: January 24, 2014

Do Not Publish

                                                2