Affi rmed 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 A fter a jury found appellant Pablo Hernandez guilty of the offen se of
continuous sexual abuse of a child , the trial court entered judgment convicting
Hernandez of continuous sexual abuse of a child as ch arged in the indictment and

sentenc ed h im to thirty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice ’ s Institutional Division. Hernandez appealed, and his a ppointed 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. 199 1). 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 discretiona ry review should this C ourt 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 C ourt 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
S tafford , 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 c opy 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 18 th day of October , 2023

.