Christopher Gerald Centeno v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00420-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00420-CR

Christopher Gerald CENTENO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-09-00105-CRK Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2026

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Appellant Christopher Gerald Centeno was indicted on four counts of aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon. Centeno pled not guilty. After a two-day trial, the jury found Centeno guilty,

and the trial court sentenced Centeno to seventeen years in confinement. The trial court certified

Centeno’s right to appeal. 04-25-00420-CR

On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous

and without merit, and requests to withdraw as counsel. The brief demonstrates a professional and

thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

As required, appellate counsel provided Centeno with a copy of the brief and informed him

of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Centeno did not file a pro se brief, and the State filed a waiver of its

right to file a brief.

We have thoroughly and independently reviewed the entire record and appellate counsel’s

brief. We find that (1) no reversible error exists in the record, (2) there are no arguable grounds for

review, and (3) therefore, the appeal is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that

reviewing court—not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal

is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing

court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because we conclude that the appeal is without merit, we

grant the request to withdraw filed by appellate counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See

id.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Centeno wish to seek further review of

this case 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 the date of either this opinion or the last

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition

for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition

-2- 04-25-00420-CR

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See id. 68.4.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-