Otis Banark Pleasant v. The State of Texas — Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

NO. 12-25-00192-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
OTIS BANARK PLEASANT,
APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
§
§
§
APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Otis Banark Pleasant appeals his convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child or
young children.1 Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with continuous sexual abuse of a child or young
children under fourteen years of age. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to
a jury trial.
The evidence at trial showed that Appellant committed several aggravated sexual assaults
against two child victims under age fourteen. 	Both victims testified as to the sexual assaults,
including for example that Appellant forcibly penetrated one of the victims with his genitals while
choking her, and that the other victim, who was only three or four years old at the time the assaults
1 T EX. PENAL CODE A NN. § 21.02(b).

2
came to light, was forced to perform aggressive oral sex on Appellant. 	The victims testified in
graphic detail to these sexual assaults.
Following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found Appellant
“guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment. 	The jury assessed
Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for seventy years.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO A NDERS V . C ALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he
has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 	He further
relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous,
and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents
a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s
counsel is unable raise any arguable issues for appeal.2 We have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having
done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP . P. 43.2(a).
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP . P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
2 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired,
and no pro se brief was filed.

3
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. 	See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 	Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion, or if a
motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this
Court. See TEX. R. APP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. 	See TEX. R. APP . P. 68.3(a). 	Any petition or discretionary review
should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX. R. APP .
P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered October 21, 2026.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 21, 2026
NO. 12-25-00192-CR
OTIS BANARK PLEASANT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 145th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F2528948)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Davis, J.