Court Opinion

ID: 9894015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 14:11:07.137652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:53.346392
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00766-CR

                                    Matthew Hernandez YANEZ,
                                            Appellant

                                                  v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                     From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2021CR10156
                            Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 25, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Following a jury trial, Matthew Hernandez Yanez was convicted of aggravated assault with

a deadly weapon (repeater) and was sentenced to sixty years of imprisonment. Yanez timely filed

a notice of appeal. His court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal

authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes

this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel’s brief satisfies the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. See
                                                                                                       04-22-00766-CR

High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Yanez was provided with a copy of the Anders brief and was

informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel advised appellant that if he wished to

review the record, he must file a motion in this court and enclosed a form motion for that purpose.

See id. Yanez subsequently filed a pro se motion, and this court directed the clerk of this court to

send Yanez a copy of the appellate record. Yanez then filed a pro se brief.

         We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Yanez’s pro se brief, and the appellate record.

We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86

(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.).

                                                            Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1
 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Yanez would like to seek review by 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 from the later of (1) the date of this
opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing 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 TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                          -2-