Matthew John Armindariz v. The State of Texas Appeal from 358th District Court of Ector County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed August 17, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________ No. 11-17-00021-CR ____________ MATTHEW JOHN ARMINDARIZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-45,886 MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Matthew John Armindariz of the offense of possession of more than four grams of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for seventy years. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, except for the reporter’s record from the hearing on the motion to suppress. Counsel also provided Appellant was a pro se motion for access to the appellate record to be filed in this court. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant filed in this court a pro se request for the reporter’s record from the hearing on the motion to suppress, and this court furnished it to him. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 2 Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM August 17, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
