Martin Saldana v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00056-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00056-CR ________________

MARTIN SALDANA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DC-CR-00690 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Martin Saldana guilty of possession of a controlled

substance with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code

Ann. § 481.112(a), (f). The trial court assessed Saldana’s punishment at sixty-five

years of imprisonment and assessed a $150,000 fine and $180 in restitution.

Saldana’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.

1 Crim. App. 1978). On June 6, 2025, we granted an extension of time for Saldana to

file a pro se brief, and Saldana filed no response.

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 would arguably

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Submitted on October 6, 2025 Opinion Delivered October 15, 2025 Do Not Publish

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

1 Saldana may challenge or decision in this case by filing a petition of discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1. 2