William Ordonez Hernandez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 01-23-00740-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 21, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00740-CR ——————————— WILLIAM ORDONEZHERNANDEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 297th District Court Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court Case No. 1745424R

1 Pursuant to its docket-equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred this appeal from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 23-9079 (Tex. Sept. 23, 2023); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases between courts of appeals). MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant William Ordonezhernandez of burglary of a

habitation with intent to commit other felony—namely, aggravated sexual assault,

sexual assault, or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—and sentenced him to

twenty years’ confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.02. Appellant appealed.

On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel and his law partner have filed a

motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no

reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the Anders brief, counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the records

and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193

S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief

meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the

record and supplies the Court with references to the record and legal authorities. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Further, appellant’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed copies of the

motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to

access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant filed

2 a pro se response in a document entitled “Motion for Reversal of Judgment,” which

we have considered in our review.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the

record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—not counsel—

determines, after full examination of the proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (same);

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant

of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review

in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. An

appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6.

Attorneys Joshua Stewart Graham and Kevin C. Smith must immediately send

the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

2 We deny all other pending motions. 3 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.