Santiago Mata v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00467-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00467-CR

Santiago MATA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. CRW2105091 Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2025

AFFIRMED

Santiago Mata was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Counts

1 and 2), five counts of sexual assault of a child (Counts 3 to 7), and two counts of prohibited

sexual conduct with ancestor or descendant (Counts 8 and 9). After a jury trial, he was found guilty

of all nine counts and was sentenced to seventy years of imprisonment, respectively, on Counts 1

and 2; and twenty years of imprisonment, respectively, on Counts 3 to 9, with Count 5 to run

consecutive to Counts 1 and 2. Mata appealed. 04-24-00467-CR

Mata’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal

authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes

that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional

evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45;

High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel has certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to

withdraw on Mata, has informed Mata of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and

has explained to Mata the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently set a

deadline for Mata to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief. Mata did not request a

copy of the record nor did he file a pro se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds

for appeal exist and agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See 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.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mata 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 either the date of this opinion or from “the day the

last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the

-2- 04-24-00467-CR

court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for

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

Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-