Samantha Jo Hayes v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed July 23, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-25-00145-CR

__________

SAMANTHA JO HAYES, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR59611

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Samantha Jo Hayes, entered an open plea of guilty to indecency with a child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1), (c), (d) (West 2026). In that regard, Appellant executed a written judicial confession whereby she stipulated that she was the person charged in the

2

indictment and that she committed the offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact as charged in the indictment. The victim of the offense was B.T., Appellant’s fourteen-year-old biological daughter. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and found her guilty. Following the punishment hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twelve years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742– 44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

3

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

July 23, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.