Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 18, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00717-CR

PABLO HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F21-76438-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Miskel

After a jury found appellant Pablo Hernandez guilty of the offense of 

continuous sexual abuse of a child, the trial court entered judgment convicting 

Hernandez of continuous sexual abuse of a child as charged in the indictment and 

sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice’s Institutional Division. Hernandez appealed, and his appointed counsel filed 

a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California in which she stated that 

after thorough review, she found no grounds for appeal with potential merit. See 

386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of 
–2–

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why 

there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Hernandez of her 

motion to withdraw, (2) provided him a copy of the motion and the brief, (3)

informed him of his right to file a pro se response, (4) informed him of his 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). This Court afforded Hernandez the opportunity to 

file a response, but he did not do so.

After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an 

appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the 

record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. 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 (1988).

After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find 

nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this 

Court’s opinion, counsel shall send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Hernandez

and advise Hernandez of his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review. See
–3–

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. We affirm the judgment. 

Goldstein, J., concurring.

220717f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PABLO HERNANDEZ, Appellant

No. 05-22-00717-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F21-76438-Q.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Goldstein and Garcia 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 18th day of October, 2023.