Roberto Misael Acosta-Lemuz v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 22, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00103-CR
__________

ROBERTO MISAEL ACOSTA-LEMUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 30360-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roberto Misael Acosta-Lemuz, pleaded guilty to aggravated
sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021
(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (West 2019). In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea, the
State agreed to a punishment cap of twenty-five years’ imprisonment; there was no
further agreement between the parties regarding a recommended sentence. The trial
court accepted Appellant’s plea and ordered a presentence investigation report to be
prepared. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court found
Appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and likewise conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
1

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

May 22, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3