Chad Isaiah Fernandes v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00186-CR

CHAD ISAIAH FERNANDES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1672749

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chad Isaiah Fernandes pled guilty to publishing/threatening to publish intimate visual

material. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.16(g) (Supp.).1 In accordance with the terms of his

plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court placed Fernandes on deferred adjudication

community supervision for five years.2 The terms and conditions of Fernandes’s negotiated

deferred adjudication community supervision required him to, among other things, (1) not use,

possess, or consume any alcohol, (2) “[a]ttend, participate in and successfully complete the

Sexual Misconduct Program,” (3) “not purchase, possess, access, or view sexually explicit visual

or audio material on any medium,” (4) “not purchase, possess, access, own, or operate a cell

phone or device that is capable of internet access without first installing a blocking and/or

monitoring software,” (5) “not engage in any lewd or lascivious act in public view that is likely

to alarm or offend another individual,” (6) “not possess, own, distribute, purchase, or view any

book, publication, or image in any form that depicts or displays simulated sexual acts or depicts

nudity of adults or children, including images which display uncovered breasts, buttocks, or

genitals,” (7) “not access, view, or create any internet chat room, message board, blog, or any

social networking website, including but not limited to My Space, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram,

Snapchat, Facebook, or TikTok,” and (8) “[h]ave no contact with any female child under 17

years of age unless a chaperon approved by the Court or supervision officer is present.” In a

1 In companion cause number 06-24-00187-CR, Fernandes challenges a separate conviction for publishing/threatening to publish intimate visual material. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.16(g) (Supp.). 2 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a Texas Supreme Court docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). Accordingly, we apply the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding this case to the extent that it conflicts with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt, the State alleged that Fernandes failed to comply

with these terms and conditions of his community supervision. After Fernandes pled true to

eight of the State’s ten allegations in open court, the trial court found nine allegations true,

revoked Fernandes’ community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to twenty-

three months’ imprisonment. Fernandes appeals.

Fernandes’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of

Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

By February 7, 2025, counsel had mailed to Fernandes copies of the brief, the motion to

withdraw, and the appellate record. Fernandes was informed of his rights to review the record

and file a pro se response. On March 5, this Court informed Fernandes that his pro se brief was

due on or before April 21. Fernandes filed his pro se response on April 21, 2025.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

3 supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. See id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.3

Scott Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 4, 2025 Date Decided: June 13, 2025

Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 4