COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MATTHEW SALAZAR, § No. 08-23-00028-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 226th Judicial District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Bexar County, Texas
State. § (TC# 2021CR9251)
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Following a plea of nolo contendere, the trial court found appellant, Matthew Salazar,
guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and imposed a sentence of 20 years’
confinement. 2 In presenting this appeal, Salazar’s counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of
a motion to withdraw. 3, 4 We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
1
We hear this case on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio and apply that court’s precedent as
required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2).
3
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
4
Salazar is also appealing the trial court’s judgment in a companion case. In appellate cause No. 08-23-00027-CR,
he appeals his conviction of arson.
I. BACKGROUND
The State indicted Salazar with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under trial cause
number 2021CR9251. The State alleged that on July 11, 2021, Salazar did use and exhibit a deadly
weapon, namely a motor vehicle, and he did intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly threatened
imminent bodily injury by driving said deadly weapon at and in the direction of the complainant.
Salazar signed a judicial confession and waiver and consent to stipulations in which he admitted
he was the person alleged in the indictment. Because Salazar’s application for deferred
adjudication was opposed by the State, the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report
and TAIP Evaluation. After considering the pre-sentence investigation report and hearing the
testimony of the complainant, the trial court entered judgment convicting Salazar on one count of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced Salazar to 20 years’
confinement to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in cause number 2020CR10126.
II. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Salazar’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief
contains a professional evaluation of the record, explains why no arguable points of error exist for
review, and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. 744–45; High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders
as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–75; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13.
Counsel also provided Salazar with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to
withdraw, as well as a copy of the appellate record, and informed him of his right to review the
record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
(setting forth duties of counsel). Salazar did not file a motion or a pro se brief.
2
We have conducted an independent review of the trial record and counsel’s brief. We agree
that the appeal presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,
no pet.).
We further grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d
at 318–20. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Salazar wish to seek further review of
this case by 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 30 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.
III. CONCLUSION
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
June 27, 2023
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3