Oscar Martinez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 04-24-00794-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00794-CR

Oscar MARTINEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CR1290 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: H. Todd McCray, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 24, 2026

AFFIRMED

Appellant Oscar Martinez was indicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a

child and one count of indecency with a child by sexual contact. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11, §

22.021(a)(1)(B). A jury found Martinez guilty of all three counts, and the trial court sentenced him

to thirty-seven years’ imprisonment for each of the aggravated sexual assault of a child counts and

seven years’ imprisonment for the indecency with a child count. Martinez timely filed notice of

appeal. 04-24-00794-CR

Martinez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel confirms that he has reviewed the record and has

determined that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on Martinez’s behalf. See id. at 744-

45. With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel concludes that this appeal is without

merit. See id.; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders in

presenting a professional evaluation demonstrating why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See

id.

Counsel has provided Martinez with copies of the brief, his motion to withdraw as counsel,

and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,

no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). He has

also informed Martinez of his right to review the record, file his own brief, and seek discretionary

review should this court conclude his appeal is frivolous. See id. This court subsequently set a

deadline for Martinez to file a pro se brief, and, on Martinez’s request, provided him with a copy

of the record. Martinez has filed a pro se brief. The State has waived briefing.

To ensure meaningful assistance of counsel when an Anders brief and a pro se brief are

filed, the appellate court may not rule on the substantive merits of the issues raised by appellant in

his pro se brief, nor any arguable grounds in the initial appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Only after any meritorious issues have been briefed by new counsel

or by appellant following remand, may the court of appeals address the substantive merits of the

issues raised. Id. On the other hand, if the appellate court, after conducting an independent review

of the entire record and both briefs, determines that the appeal is frivolous, it may affirm the trial

-2- 04-24-00794-CR

court’s judgment by issuing an opinion explaining that review of the record revealed no reversible

error. See id. at 826–27.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record, the Anders brief, and Martinez’s pro se brief,

and have independently determined that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and that this

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of

conviction and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86;

Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Martinez wish to seek further review 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 later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date

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

petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and should

comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.4.

H. Todd McCray, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-