Carlos Omar Casillas aka Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla v. The State of Texas Appeal from 8th District Court of Hopkins County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00148-CR CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS AKA CARLOS OMAR CASILLAS PADILLA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1725959 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess MEMORANDUM OPINION Carlos Omar Casillas, aka Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla, was convicted by the 8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County in this case of possession of child pornography1 and assessed punishment of ten years’ imprisonment. This case was tried with seven companion cases, which are the subject of other appeals pending before this Court.2 Casillas filed a single, consolidated brief covering all eight appeals in which he contends (1) that his trial counsel gave him ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) that the trial court erred in assessing a criminal technology fee. The argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument brought before this Court in the companion appeal styled Casillas v. State, cause number 06-17-00147-CR. In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that (1) Casillas has not shown that his trial counsel gave him ineffective assistance and (2) the trial court was authorized to assess costs for a criminal technology fee. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Casillas’ issues as they apply to this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Ralph K. Burgess Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: November 3, 2017 November 8, 2017 Do Not Publish 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (West 2016). 2 In his companion cases, 06-17-00147-CR, 06-17-00149-CR, 06-17-00150-CR, 06-17-00151-CR, 06-17-00152-CR, 06-17-00153-CR, and 06-17-00154-CR, Casillas appeals from his convictions for seven additional counts of possession of child pornography. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.