Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00133-CR
Christopher G. MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas
Trial Court No. 19-02-0049-CRA
Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2021
AFFIRMED
A jury convicted Christopher G. Martinez of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a
child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and the trial court sentenced
Martinez to eighteen years’ imprisonment for each count with the sentences to run concurrently.
Because we conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Martinez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief with this court stating he
conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to
04-20-00133-CR
be advanced on Martinez’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With
citations to the record and legal authority, counsel explains why he concluded the appeal is without
merit. Counsel states he thoroughly reviewed the record, including the indictment and evidence
adduced at trial, as well as the adequacy of the punishment proceedings. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to
advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel provided Martinez with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw,
as well as a copy of the appellate record, and informed Martinez of his right to file his own brief,
and to seek discretionary review should this court conclude Martinez’s appeal is frivolous. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,
85–86 (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.). Thereafter, we set deadlines for Martinez to file a pro se brief.
Martinez did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible
error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns,
924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Martinez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, Martinez must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Martinez
must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
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.
-2-