Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00216-CR __________ CHRISTINE RAINES VILLALTA CLAROS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-22-1221-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christine Raines Villalta Claros, was charged in a multi-count indictment with the offenses of injury to a disabled individual (Count One), murder (Count Two), tampering with a human corpse (Count Three), and tampering with physical evidence (Count Four). See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.04(a), (e), 19.02(b), (c), 37.09(c), (d) (West Supp. 2025). A jury convicted Appellant of all offenses and assessed her punishment at imprisonment in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as follows: (1) fifty years for Count One; (2) life for Count Two; (3) fifteen years for Count Three; and (4) ten years for Count Four. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentences imposed be served concurrently. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (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, copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records, and a pro se form in which to request and access the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and (4) file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 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 did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the brief and the record, and we likewise conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable 2 grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826– 27. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE August 13, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 1 We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 3