Willie Hernandez v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

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
3