Kenneth Len Cato v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed August 7, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00171-CR
__________

KENNETH LEN CATO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court
Nolan County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14532

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kenneth Len Cato, entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2024). The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea
and permitted the parties to present punishment evidence at a separate sentencing
hearing. The State presented the testimony of the victim and two law enforcement
witnesses, then five witnesses testified for Appellant. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for seven
years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and
a fine of $1,000. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the trial
court denied following a hearing.
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 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 we agree that the appeal is without merit.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

August 7, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3