Daniel Isidoro Diaz v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00276-CR

DANIEL ISIDORO DIAZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 81st District Court
Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20-08-00068-CRK, Honorable Russell Wilson, Presiding

March 21, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant Daniel Isidoro Diaz appeals the trial court’s judgments by which he was

convicted of aggravated robbery and of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit

another felony, both first-degree felonies. Appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses and

asked a jury to assess punishment. Thereafter, the jury assessed punishment at thirty-

five years imprisonment on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals. Thus, we
are bound by the latter’s precedent should it conflict with ours. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3
Appellant timely appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion

to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. 2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certified that he conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis

for reversing appellant’s convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel explained why, under the

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that

he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy

of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant

of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated

January 9, 2024, this court granted appellant an opportunity to file a response to counsel’s

motion and a pro se brief by February 8, 2024. To date, appellant has done neither or

otherwise contacted the court.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2
We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any non-

frivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. We found none. So,

after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we 1) agree that there is no

plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s convictions, 2) affirm the trial court’s judgments,

and 3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 3

Brian Quinn
Chief Justice

Do not publish.

3 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of

the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and
ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.
3