Matthew Kaylin Iverson v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MATTHEW KAYLIN IVERSON, § No. 08-23-00105-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 198th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § Of Kerr County, Texas
Appellee. § (TC# B21-131-Count 1)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BACKGROUND
Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). Iverson’s counsel has filed an Anders brief in
support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment
of the trial court. 1
The State indicted Appellant with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
in cause number B21-131. Iverson signed a judicial confession and waiver and consent to
stipulations in which he pled guilty to both counts in the indictment. In February 2022, Iverson
was placed on deferred adjudication for five years. In January 2023, the State filed a motion to
1
This case was transferred from our sister court in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s
authority under Chapter 73 of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73. We follow the precedent of
the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
proceed requesting the trial court adjudicate and sentence Iverson. The State alleged Iverson
committed twenty-four violations of conditions of probation. After finding twelve violations true,
the trial court entered judgment convicting Iverson on count one of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Iverson to 18 years’ confinement.
On appeal, Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). In Anders, the
United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel, who had been appointed to represent the
appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on
appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. As such, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the
court of his conclusion and efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id.Here, Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with a brief
concluding the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders
v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Id. As required by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided copies of the motion
and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro
se response, notified Appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should we find his appeal
frivolous, provided a motion to assist Appellant in obtaining the record, and supplied Appellant
with this Court’s mailing address. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, along with the Anders brief, and we agree with
counsel’s professional assessment that the record does not present any meritorious grounds for
review. Accordingly, we find the appeal frivolous.
2
We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice
August 18, 2023
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3