Jose Maria Cavazos, III v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00716-CR

Jose Maria CAVAZOS, III,
Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010CR5796
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23, 2025

AFFIRMED

Jose Maria Cavazos pled no contest/nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated sexual

assault of a child and pursuant to the plea agreement was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

Cavazos subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing, which the trial

court granted, allowing certain evidence to be tested. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01,

64.03(a). After obtaining the results of the forensic DNA testing, the trial court conducted a hearing

to determine whether, had the results been available during the trial of the offense, it is reasonably
04-24-00716-CR

probable that Cavazos would not have been convicted. See id. art 64.04. Following the hearing and

additional briefing by the parties, the trial court, in its “Chapter 64 Order on Post Conviction DNA

Testing Trial Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” concluded that “had these DNA

results been available at the time [Cavazos] entered into his plea agreement, it is not reasonably

probable that [Cavazos] would not have been convicted.” See id. Cavazos appeals the trial court’s

order on the post-conviction DNA testing. See id. art. 64.05.

Cavazos’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,

812–13 (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, 319–20 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014), counsel has certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw

on Cavazos, has informed Cavazos of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and has

explained to Cavazos the procedure for obtaining the record. This court then set a deadline for

Cavazos to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief. Cavazos neither requested a copy

of the record nor filed 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 trial court’s “Chapter 64 Order on

Post Conviction DNA Testing Trial Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” is affirmed.

-2-
04-24-00716-CR

Furthermore, we grant the 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 Cavazos 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

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.

Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-