April Dawn Hayes AKA April Dawn Solis v. State
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.
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Do Not Publish Tex.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.