eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-07

Juan Martinez v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00125-CR
Juan MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 5481
Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding
Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting:          Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellant Juan Martinez was convicted by a jury of one count of continuous sexual abuse
and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court appointed appellate counsel, and counsel
timely filed a notice of appeal.
Martinez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967); counsel
also filed a motion to withdraw. In his brief, Martinez’s counsel states that he has reviewed the
04-14-00125-CR
entire record and found no reversible error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2. The brief meets the Anders
requirements. See
    id. at 744; 
    see also High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);
Gainous v. State,
    436 S.W.2d 137
    , 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided
Martinez with a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Martinez of his
right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 85–
86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns v. State,
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Martinez did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the entire record, we agree with counsel’s Anders brief that the record
contains no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, see
    id., and grant 
    counsel’s motion to
withdraw, see
    Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85
    –86;
    Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 
    n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Martinez wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from (1) the date of this opinion
or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration 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
    id. R. 68.3(a). 
    Any petition for discretionary review
must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
    id. R. 68.4. 
    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-