April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 8, 2021
Docket02-19-00365-CR
StatusPublished

This text of April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State (April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00365-CR ___________________________

APRIL DAWN HAYES AKA APRIL DAWN SOLIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1522504D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant April Dawn Hayes (a/k/a April Dawn Solis) has appealed her state-

jail-felony conviction for child endangerment and resulting two-year sentence. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.041. On February 24, 2020, her court-appointed appellate

counsel filed a brief asserting that her appeal is frivolous and a motion seeking to

withdraw from his representation of Hayes. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–

45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief and motion meet the Anders requirements

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,

406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Hayes filed a response to her

counsel’s Anders brief, but it provides no arguable grounds for appeal. The State also

filed a response, agreeing with Hayes’s counsel’s assessment.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also consider the Anders brief and

any pro se response. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, the appellate record, and Hayes’s

response. Finding no reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is

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

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2 /s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 8, 2021

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/april-dawn-hayes-aka-april-dawn-solis-v-state-texapp-2021.