Court Opinion

ID: 9405744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 07:09:28.244155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.976850
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                       EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                            EL PASO, TEXAS

    MATTHEW SALAZAR,                                      §                  No. 08-23-00028-CR

                                      Appellant,          §                     Appeal from the

    v.                                                    §              226th Judicial District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                   §                 of Bexar County, Texas

                                      State.              §                   (TC# 2021CR9251)

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

           Following a plea of nolo contendere, the trial court found appellant, Matthew Salazar,

guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and imposed a sentence of 20 years’

confinement. 2 In presenting this appeal, Salazar’s counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of

a motion to withdraw. 3, 4 We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1
  We hear this case on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio and apply that court’s precedent as
required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2).
3
    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
4
  Salazar is also appealing the trial court’s judgment in a companion case. In appellate cause No. 08-23-00027-CR,
he appeals his conviction of arson.
                                            I. BACKGROUND

       The State indicted Salazar with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under trial cause

number 2021CR9251. The State alleged that on July 11, 2021, Salazar did use and exhibit a deadly

weapon, namely a motor vehicle, and he did intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly threatened

imminent bodily injury by driving said deadly weapon at and in the direction of the complainant.

Salazar signed a judicial confession and waiver and consent to stipulations in which he admitted

he was the person alleged in the indictment. Because Salazar’s application for deferred

adjudication was opposed by the State, the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report

and TAIP Evaluation. After considering the pre-sentence investigation report and hearing the

testimony of the complainant, the trial court entered judgment convicting Salazar on one count of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Salazar to 20 years’

confinement to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in cause number 2020CR10126.

                                       II. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

       Salazar’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief

contains a professional evaluation of the record, explains why no arguable points of error exist for

review, and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. 744–45; High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders

as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–75; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13.

       Counsel also provided Salazar with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to

withdraw, as well as a copy of the appellate record, and informed him 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)

(setting forth duties of counsel). Salazar did not file a motion or a pro se brief.

                                                   2
        We have conducted an independent review of the trial record and counsel’s brief. We agree

that the appeal presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,

no pet.).

        We further grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d

at 318–20. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Salazar wish to seek further review of

this case 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 30 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 in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements

of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                           III. CONCLUSION

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

                                               GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 27, 2023

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

(Do Not Publish)

                                                  3