Manuel Cuellar v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 5, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00141-CR
__________

MANUEL CUELLAR, Appellant CR 80

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court
Howard County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 16362 CR 80

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Manuel Cuellar, was convicted by a jury of possessing less than
one gram of heroin, punishable as a second-degree felony following his pleas of
“true” to the enhancement allegations. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§§ 481.102(2), 481.115(b) (West Supp. 2024); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(b)
(West 2019). The jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for fifteen
years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and
the trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and
supporting brief in which he assures this court that, after conducting a professional
evaluation of the record and applicable law, 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 further certifies that he
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; 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; 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 the evidence established that law enforcement
stopped Appellant’s vehicle after he failed to properly signal his intention to turn at
an intersection. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 545.104 (West 2022). Law
enforcement observed in plain view on the driver’s side floorboard a syringe that

1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2
was later determined to contain 0.68 grams of heroin, a controlled substance in
penalty group one. See HEALTH & SAFETY § 481.102(2). Appellant admitted to law
enforcement that the substance in the syringe was heroin and testified at trial that he
knowingly possessed the heroin. Having found no non-frivolous issues elsewhere
in the record, we agree that this appeal is without merit.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

June 5, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3