Enrique Mata v. The State of Texas Appeal from 81st Judicial District Court of La Salle County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00345-CR Enrique MATA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 12-05-00028-CRL Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 8, 2016 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Enrique Mata pled nolo contendere to the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child. On February 13, 2014, the trial court signed an order of deferred adjudication and placed Mata on community supervision for a period of ten years. Thereafter, the State moved to revoke Mata’s community supervision, alleging Mata violated multiple terms of community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Mata pled “true” to an allegation that he had been convicted of committing a new offense in Oklahoma. The trial court revoked Mata’s deferred adjudication 04-15-00345-CR community supervision, signed a judgment adjudicating guilt, and sentenced Mata to thirty years in prison. Mata appealed. Mata’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he analyzes a potential ground of error, but nonetheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In addition, counsel states that Mata was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file this own brief. Mata did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See 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.). No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mata 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 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. Karen Angelini, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
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.
