Matthew Garza v. The State of Texas Appeal from 359th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00097-CR ________________ MATTHEW GARZA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-12-16397-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Garza was convicted of possessing more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine, a third-degree felony. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c). Because Garza’s sentence was enhanced by two previous felony convictions, the trial court sentenced Garza to life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 1 Garza’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 23, 2023, we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but Appellant did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on December 28, 2023 Opinion Delivered January 17, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1
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.
