Carlos Castillo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

Annotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-92-127-CR
CARLOS CASTILLO,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 106,040, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

 

This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Punishment was assessed at confinement for 10 years.

Appellant has filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. No decision of this Court has been delivered. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 59(b) (Pamph. 1992).

 

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith]

Dismissed On Appellant's Motion

Filed: June 3, 1992

[Do Not Publish]

 
June 3, 1992

Mr. Ira L. Davis

812 San Antonio Street

Suite G20

Austin, Texas 78701

 

Honorable Ronald Earle

District Attorney

Travis County Courthouse

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

 

Re: No. 3-92-127-CR--Carlos Castillo v. The State of Texas (t/c no. 106,040)

 

Counsel:

 

In accordance with Rule 91, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed is a copy of the opinion and judgment handed down by this Court on this date in the above cause.

 

The Court's mandate has been issued this date to the clerk of the trial court under separate cover.

 

Very truly yours,

 

W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

 

By

Barbara E. Chapman, Deputy

Enclosures

 

xc: State Prosecuting Attorney

Clerk, Court of Criminal Appeals

Honorable Jon N. Wisser, District Judge

Ms. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, District Clerk

MR. IRA L. DAVIS

812 SAN ANTONIO STREET

SUITE G20

AUSTIN TX 78701

HONORABLE RONALD EARLE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE

P. O. BOX 1748

AUSTIN TX 78767

TRIAL COURT NO. 106,040

THE STATE OF TEXAS.

 

TO THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT of TRAVIS COUNTY - GREETINGS:

 

Before our COURT OF APPEALS, on the 3rd of June A.D. 1992, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment between

CARLOS CASTILLO, Appellant,

No. 3-92-127-CR vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee,

 

was determined; and therein our said COURT OF APPEALS made its orders in these words:

 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the written motion of the appellant to withdraw the appeal and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the same should be granted: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that appellant be allowed to withdraw notice of appeal and that the appeal be dismissed; that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended; and that this decision be certified below for observance.

 

WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of said COURT OF APPEALS in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HONORABLE JIMMY CARROLL, Chief Justice of our said COURT OF APPEALS for the Third District of Texas, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin, this the 3rd day of June A.D. 1992.

 

W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

 

by: , Deputy

Barbara E. Chapman

 
June 3, 1992

Ms. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza

District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse

P. O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

 

Re: No. 3-92-127-CR--Carlos Castillo v. State of Texas (t/c no. 106,040)

 

Dear Ms. Rodriguez-Mendoza:

 

Enclosed, with reference to the above cause, is the mandate of this Court. Please acknowledge your receipt of same by returning the enclosed card (No. 1) to this office, appropriately completed.

 

Rule 87(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, sets out the procedures to be followed upon your receipt of the mandate.

 

Upon execution of the mandate in accordance with the rule, either your office or the sheriff's office should return the remaining card enclosed (No. 2), appropriately completed.

 

Your cooperation in this regard is appreciated.

 

Very truly yours,

 

W. KENNETH LAW, CLERK

 

by

Barbara E. Chapman, Deputy

 

Enclosures to Clerk

 

xc: Mr. Ira L. Davis

Honorable Ronald Earle, District Attorney

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.