Hayden Reid Najera v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: 02-23-00187-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-23-00187-CR ___________________________

HAYDEN REID NAJERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR15419

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

The trial court found Appellant Hayden Reid Najera guilty of third-degree

felony theft, sentenced him to 10 years’ confinement, and ordered him to pay

$10,000 in restitution to the complainant within 5 years of his release. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 31.03(a), (e)(5); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.037.

Najera’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion in which he avers that, in his

professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),

by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable

grounds for relief exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014).

We gave Najera the opportunity to file a pro se response, but he has not done

so. The State did not file a response.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must

independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on the

appellant’s behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

2 We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We agree with

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the

record that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

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

Delivered: June 6, 2024