Willie Hernandez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 11, 2024
• Docket: 02-23-00113-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-23-00113-CR ___________________________

WILLIE HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 89th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. DC89-CR2022-0593

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant Willie Hernandez of assault of a public servant and

assessed his punishment at 10 years’ confinement. The trial court sentenced

Hernandez accordingly. We affirm.

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

counsel and a brief in support of that motion, in which he avers that 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 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Hernandez of

his motion to withdraw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and the brief;

(3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his pro se

right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous; and

(5) took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Hernandez had the opportunity to file a

response on his own behalf but declined to do so. Likewise, the State did not file a

response to the Anders brief.

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

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

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

2 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).

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

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

the appellate 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/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice

Do Not Publish Tex.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

Delivered: July 11, 2024