Santiago Mata v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00467-CR Santiago MATA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. CRW2105091 Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2025 AFFIRMED Santiago Mata was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Counts and 2), five counts of sexual assault of a child (Counts 3 to 7), and two counts of prohibited sexual conduct with ancestor or descendant (Counts 8 and 9). After a jury trial, he was found guilty of all nine counts and was sentenced to seventy years of imprisonment, respectively, on Counts 1 and 2; and twenty years of imprisonment, respectively, on Counts 3 to 9, with Count 5 to run consecutive to Counts 1 and 2. Mata appealed.

04-24-00467-CR

Mata’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 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 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel has certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on Mata, has informed Mata of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and has explained to Mata the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently set a deadline for Mata to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief. Mata did not request a copy of the record nor did he file a pro se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85- (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.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mata wish to seek further review 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 thirty days from either the date of this opinion or from “the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the

-2- 04-24-00467-CR court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-