Jesse Salazar v. the State of Texas

2025-12-17

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Salazar's deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of felony family assault, and sentencing him to ten years in prison, and granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.

Jesse Salazar appealed his conviction following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. Salazar had initially received a plea agreement that deferred a guilt finding on a felony family assault charge and placed him on supervised probation for two years. After the State moved to revoke his supervision based on alleged violations, the trial court held a hearing, accepted Salazar's admission of a violation, revoked his probation, entered a guilty finding, and sentenced him to ten years in prison.

Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal lacked merit and moved to withdraw representation. The court reviewed the record, counsel's analysis, and Salazar's correspondence (in which he raised a jail-time credit issue but did not file a formal response brief). Finding no arguable grounds for appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether arguable grounds existed for appeal following revocation of deferred adjudication
Sufficiency of appellate counsel's Anders brief and compliance with withdrawal procedures
Jail-time credit claim raised in correspondence but not formally briefed

Procedural posture

This appeal arose from a trial court's revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision and imposition of sentence in Bexar County District Court, brought to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio.

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00495-CR

Jesse SALAZAR,

Appellant

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR9428

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2025

AFFIRMED

Following a plea agreement between appellant Jesse Salazar and the State, the trial court

determined the evidence was sufficient to find Salazar guilty of felony family assault, second

offense, but deferred its finding of guilt and placed Salazar on deferred adjudication community

supervision for two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke alleging Salazar

violated several conditions of his community supervision. The trial court conducted a hearing on

the State’s motion, and Salazar pled true to violating a condition of his community supervision.

04-24-00495-CR

The trial court revoked Salazar’s community supervision, adjudicated Salazar guilty of felony

family assault, and sentenced Salazar to ten years in prison. Salazar appeals.

Salazar’s court-appointed appellate counsel 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 certified that he served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on

Salazar, informed Salazar of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief, and explained to

Salazar the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently set a deadline for Salazar

to file a pro se brief. Salazar then requested a copy of the record, which this court made several

attempts to send to him while in custody. Salazar did not file an actual pro se brief but did

correspond with this court and assert he did not receive proper credit for time served. 1 The State 0F

did not file a brief in response.

We have reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, and Salazar’s correspondence.

We conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous and

We note a complaint regarding a trial court’s failure to award jail-time credit to a defendant may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Daisy, 156 S.W.3d 922, 924 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, orig. proceeding). Further, if a defendant files a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and the trial court denies the motion or fails to respond, “relief may be sought by filing an application for writ of mandamus in a court of appeals.” Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Nevertheless, “[a] motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or a writ of mandamus to the appellate court if such a motion is denied will provide a remedy only if the right to pre-trial jail-time credit is absolutely indisputable under the terms of [a]rticle 42.03, [s]ection 2(a)(1)” of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In re Brown, 343 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding).

-2-04-24-00495-CR

without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court

of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should

only determine if the appeal is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment

adjudicating guilt and grant appellate counsel’s 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 Salazar 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

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.

Irene Rios, Justice

-3-