Christian Castillo v. the State of Texas
02-20-00153-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Christian Castillo pleaded guilty to second-degree felony theft without a plea bargain and was sentenced to 12 years on August 28, 2020; trial court signed judgment the same day.
- No postjudgment motions were filed after the original judgment.
- On October 8, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment nunc pro tunc adding an incident number and the sentence commencement date.
- Castillo filed an appeal on October 30, 2020, appealing solely from the nunc pro tunc judgment.
- Court‑appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, complied with Kelly procedures, and notified Castillo of his rights; Castillo did not file a pro se response.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the nunc pro tunc judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability/timeliness of appeal from nunc pro tunc judgment | Castillo appealed the nunc pro tunc judgment (timely filed after its signing) | State did not contest appealability; case law governs timing and scope | Appeal is limited to the nunc pro tunc judgment and was timely under controlling precedent (Blanton) |
| Adequacy of counsel's Anders/Kelly compliance to seek withdrawal | Castillo raised no objections and filed no response | State filed no brief; court examined counsel’s compliance | Counsel met Anders and Kelly requirements; motion to withdraw permitted |
| Whether the record contained any nonfrivolous appellate issue | Castillo advanced no arguable grounds on appeal | State presented no argument; court required independent review | Court’s independent review found the appeal wholly frivolous; affirmed the nunc pro tunc judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (nunc pro tunc judgments are appealable and the appeal period begins when the nunc pro tunc is signed)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate court must independently review the record after an Anders brief)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (additional procedural protections counsel must follow when moving to withdraw)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate courts must independently review the record before allowing counsel to withdraw)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for determining frivolous appeals)
- Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing appellate review when counsel seeks withdrawal)