Court Opinion

ID: 9925283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 09:10:24.293607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:39.873049
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                              NO. 09-23-00097-CR
                              ________________

                        MATTHEW GARZA, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 359th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 22-12-16397-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Garza was convicted of possessing more than one gram but less

than four grams of methamphetamine, a third-degree felony. Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 481.115(c). Because Garza’s sentence was enhanced by two previous

felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Garza to life imprisonment in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

                                         1
      Garza’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 23, 2023,

we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the

deadline for doing so, but Appellant did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed

the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues

support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                          JAY WRIGHT
                                                             Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2023
Opinion Delivered January 17, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      1
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2