# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 19

- 00115

- CR Saul CHAVEZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 16

- 1244

- CR

- B Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 18, 2020
AFFIRMED A jury convicted appellant Saul Chavez (“Chavez”) of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven years’ confinement

. Because we conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit, we affirm. Chavez’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
h e concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief : (1) recites the evidence contained in the appellate record; (2) states counsel found no non

- frivolous grounds for reversal in the record; and (3) states counsel served a copy of his brief on Chavez with a letter informing Chavez of his right to file a04

- 19

- 00115

- CR

- 2

- pro se brief on his own behalf. By order dated September 23, 2019, this court also advised Chavez of his right to request a copy of the appellate record and file a pro se brief within thirty days

. Chavez neither requested a copy of the appellate record nor filed a pro se brief by the deadline

. On December 16, 2019, after this case was set at issue, Chavez filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, stating he intended to file a pro se petition for post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus. By order dated December 23, 2019, this court granted Chavez’s untimely motion to access the appellate record and advised Chavez that while this court has no jurisdiction over post

- conviction writs of habeas corpus, Chavez may file a pro se brief identifying those issues that he believes this court should consider in deciding whether this case presents any meritorious appella te issues. The order directed Chavez to file his pro se brief, should he choose to file one, within thirty days of the date this court receive s notice that the record was sent to Chavez by the district clerk. On January 9, 2020, the Guadalupe County Distri ct Clerk confirmed a complete copy of the appellate record was mailed to Chavez. Chavez, however, has not filed a pro se brief. After reviewing the entire record and conducting an independent and thorough review, we conclude there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is frivolous

. See Biedsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 See id. ; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 ( Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Chavez 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 discretiona ry review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this opinion or the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must b e filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4.