Arthur v. Matlock v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00279-CR
________________

ARTHUR V. MATLOCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25915
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Arthur V. Matlock pleaded

guilty to the state jail felony of credit card or debit card abuse. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 32.31. The trial court found Matlock guilty and assessed his punishment at

two years in state jail, 100 hours of community service, a $500 fine and ordered him

to pay $121 in restitution to his victim but suspended the confinement portion of
Matlock’s sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years, with

express conditions.

Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the term of community supervision,

the State filed a motion to revoke Matlock’s community supervision. At the hearing

on the State’s motion, Matlock pleaded “true” to violating certain terms of the

community supervision order and the trial court found that Matlock had violated the

terms of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Matlock’s community

supervision and sentenced him to two years in state jail.

On appeal, Matlock’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents

counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On November 4, 2024, we notified Matlock of his right to file a

pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but we received no

response from him.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that arguably would

support the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). 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 February 5, 2025
Opinion Delivered March 5, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1
Matlock may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.