Daniel Isidoro Diaz v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00276-CR
DANIEL ISIDORO DIAZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 81st District Court
Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-08-00068-CRK, Honorable Russell Wilson, Presiding
March 21, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant Daniel Isidoro Diaz appeals the trial court’s judgments by which he was
convicted of aggravated robbery and of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit
another felony, both first-degree felonies. Appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses and
asked a jury to assess punishment. Thereafter, the jury assessed punishment at thirty-
five years imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals. Thus, we
are bound by the latter’s precedent should it conflict with ours. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3
Appellant timely appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion
to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. 2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the judgments of the trial court.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certified that he conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis
for reversing appellant’s convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel explained why, under the
controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that
he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy
of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant
of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated
January 9, 2024, this court granted appellant an opportunity to file a response to counsel’s
motion and a pro se brief by February 8, 2024. To date, appellant has done neither or
otherwise contacted the court.
2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any non-
frivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. We found none. So,
after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we 1) agree that there is no
plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s convictions, 2) affirm the trial court’s judgments,
and 3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 3
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of
the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and
ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.
3