Artemio Flores Yanez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 7, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00974-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirm and Opinion Filed October 7, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00974-CR

ARTEMIO FLORES YANEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-83716-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Breedlove, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Breedlove Appellant Artemio Flores Yanez appeals his conviction and life sentence for

the offense of murder.1 We affirm.

Yanez entered a plea of guilty to murder. The trial court accepted his plea and

held a hearing on Yanez’s punishment. The State introduced a video of the murder

during the punishment hearing. The video showed Yanez stab the victim many times.

The medical examiner testified the victim had been stabbed sixty-three times. A

psychologist who evaluated Yanez testified that Yanez has a personality disorder

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02. with paranoia and antisocial traits. Additionally, the psychologist diagnosed Yanez

with severe chronic alcohol use disorder and neurocognitive disorder related to

alcohol use. The psychologist testified Yanez’s condition is progressive, and he will

not improve. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Yanez guilty and

sentenced him to life in prison. This appeal followed.

Yanez’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in her

professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967), by presenting a

professional evaluation of the appellate record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Yanez of her motion to

withdraw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and brief; (3) informed him

of his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his pro se right to seek

discretionary review should this Court hold the appeal frivolous; and (5) took

concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This Court afforded Yanez the opportunity to file

a response on his own behalf, but he did not do so.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this Court

–2– is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is

any arguable ground that may be raised on appellant’s behalf. See Stafford, 813

S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit—we find nothing

in the appellate record that arguably might support this appeal. See Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206

S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Maricela Breedlove/ MARICELA BREEDLOVE JUSTICE

230974f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ARTEMIO FLORES YANEZ, On Appeal from the 199th Judicial Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-83716- No. 05-23-00974-CR V. 2021. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Molberg and Kennedy participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 7th day of October, 2024.

–4–