Matthew Salazar v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MATTHEW SALAZAR, § No. 08-23-00027-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 226th Judicial District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Bexar County, Texas
State. § (TC# 2020CR10126)
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Matthew Salazar appeals a trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred adjudication
community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of the offense of arson 2 and sentencing him to
ten years’ of imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. 3 In presenting this appeal, Salazar’s counsel has
filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. 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. § 28.02.
3
Salazar is also appealing the trial court’s judgment in a companion case. In appellate cause No. 08-23-00028-CR,
he appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
4
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
I. BACKGROUND
The State indicted Salazar on one count of arson under trial cause number 2020CR10126.
The indictment alleged that on July 11, 2020, Salazar, with intent to damage and destroy a vehicle,
did start a fire by igniting combustible material with an open flame, knowing that the vehicle was
situated within the limits of an incorporated city or town. Salazar was placed on deferred
adjudication community supervision in accordance with a plea-agreement he entered with the
State. On July 13, 2021, the State filed a motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke
community supervision. The State alleged two violations of the terms and conditions of Salazar’s
plea-agreement, namely two counts of assault allegedly occurring on July 11, 2021. Salazar pled
“true” to violating a condition of his community supervision. In September of 2022, the trial court
revoked Salazar’s deferred adjudication community supervision, signed a judgment adjudicating
guilt, and imposed a sentence of ten years’ confinement and a $1,000 fine.
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
2
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.
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