Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2024

Daniel Isidoro Diaz v. the State of Texas

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 21, 2024

Opinion

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).

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.