Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00244-CR

Isaiah MATA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8191

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 1, 2015

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Appellant Isaiah Mata was indicted for the offense of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a 

plea bargain agreement, he pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to seven years’ confinement 

and assessed a $2,000.00 fine. Mata then perfected this appeal. 

Mata’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which 

she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is without merit. The brief meets 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel 
04-14-00244-CR

- 2 -

provided proof Mata was given a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, the appellate record, 

and was informed of his right to file his own brief. Mata filed a brief on his own behalf in which 

he alleges: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictment, violating his due 

process rights under the state and federal constitutions; (2) the trial court erred in denying portions 

of his motion in limine; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire 

record and determine (1) the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion explaining there is no 

reversible error, or (2) there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion remanding the 

cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 

763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005) (holding court of appeal may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any

arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)). 

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Mata’s brief and find no 

reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See id. We therefore grant the 

motion to withdraw filed by Mata’s appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See 

id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 

924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mata wish to seek further review of this 

case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered 

or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is 

overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be 

filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for 
04-14-00244-CR

- 3 -

discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Do Not Publish