Court Opinion

ID: 9679910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:12:44.094004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:48.845295
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                   EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                        EL PASO, TEXAS

    MATTHEW KAYLIN IVERSON,                             §                 No. 08-23-00105-CR

                                   Appellant,           §                    Appeal from the

    v.                                                  §                  198th District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 §                Of Kerr County, Texas

                                   Appellee.            §               (TC# B21-131-Count 1)

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                            BACKGROUND

         Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation for aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). Iverson’s counsel has filed an Anders brief in

support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment

of the trial court. 1

         The State indicted Appellant with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

in cause number B21-131. Iverson signed a judicial confession and waiver and consent to

stipulations in which he pled guilty to both counts in the indictment. In February 2022, Iverson

was placed on deferred adjudication for five years. In January 2023, the State filed a motion to

1
  This case was transferred from our sister court in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s
authority under Chapter 73 of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73. We follow the precedent of
the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
proceed requesting the trial court adjudicate and sentence Iverson. The State alleged Iverson

committed twenty-four violations of conditions of probation. After finding twelve violations true,

the trial court entered judgment convicting Iverson on count one of aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Iverson to 18 years’ confinement.

       On appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). In Anders, the

United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel, who had been appointed to represent the

appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on

appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. As such, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the

court of his conclusion and efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id.

       Here, Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with a brief

concluding the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders

v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Id. As required by the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals, Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided copies of the motion

and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro

se response, notified Appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should we find his appeal

frivolous, provided a motion to assist Appellant in obtaining the record, and supplied Appellant

with this Court’s mailing address. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

       We have thoroughly reviewed the record, along with the Anders brief, and we agree with

counsel’s professional assessment that the record does not present any meritorious grounds for

review. Accordingly, we find the appeal frivolous.

                                                 2
       We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                             YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

August 18, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

                                                 3