Isaiah Mata v. State ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00244-CR
Isaiah MATA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013CR8191
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 1, 2015
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant Isaiah Mata was indicted for the offense of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a
plea bargain agreement, he pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to seven years’ confinement
and assessed a $2,000.00 fine. Mata then perfected this appeal.
Mata’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is without merit. The brief meets
the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel
04-14-00244-CR
provided proof Mata was given a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, the appellate record,
and was informed of his right to file his own brief. Mata filed a brief on his own behalf in which
he alleges: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictment, violating his due
process rights under the state and federal constitutions; (2) the trial court erred in denying portions
of his motion in limine; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire
record and determine (1) the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion explaining there is no
reversible error, or (2) there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion remanding the
cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d
763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (holding court of appeal may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any
arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Mata’s brief and find no
reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See id. We therefore grant the
motion to withdraw filed by Mata’s appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See
id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mata wish to seek further review of this
case in 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 after either the day our judgment is rendered
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for 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. Any petition for
-2-
04-14-00244-CR
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-3-