T he St at e r e- i ndi ct ed Her nande z on O ct ober 4, 200 7, al l egi ng t hat H er nande z had t wo pr i or st at e- 1 j a il- f e lo n y c o n v ic tio n s — o n e o n D e c e m b e r 2 , 1 9 9 9 , f o r p o s s e s s io n o f a n c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , a n d o n e o n A p r il 18, 200 2, f or f or ger y . Because sh e ha d be en p r ev i ousl y conv i ct ed o ft wo st at e- j ai l f el oni es, H er nande z was s u b je c t to th e p u n i s h m e n t ra n g e a s s o c i a te d w i th th i rd -d e g re e fe l o n i e s
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 12

. 34( a) (V ern on 20 03 ) ( pro vi di ng t ha t t he pu ni s hm en t rang e fo r a t hi rd-de gre e fe l on y i s “i m pri s on m en t

. . . for an y t erm n o t m o re th a n 1 0 ye a rs o r l e s s th a n 2 y e a rs ”) ; i d. § 12. 42( a) ( 1) ( Ver non Supp. 2008) ( “ I f i t i s shown on t he t r i al ofa st at e[
- ] j ai l fe l ony
. . . t hat t he def endan t has pr ev i ousl y been f i nal l y convi ct ed oft wo st at e[
- ] j ai l f el oni es, 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0073 0-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JOA NN A

H ERN A ND EZ , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza On S eptember

27, 2007, appel lan t, Joann a Her nandez , w as charg ed by i ndi ctment wit h u n la wf u l p o s s e s s io n o f le s s t h a n o n e gra m o f

co c a in e , a st a t e -j a il fe lo n y. See T EX
. 1on co nvi c t i on t he de fen da nt s ha l l be pu ni s he d fo r a t hi rd-de gre e fe l on y . ”) I n i t s m ot i on to re vok e, t he St at e al l eged t hat H er nande z : ( 1) com m i t t ed cr i m i nal t r espass on 2 Sept em ber , 28, 200 8; ( 2) f ai l ed t o r epor t t o he r pr obat i on o f f i cer dur i ng August and S ept em ber 2008; ( 3) f ai l ed t o pa y cour t cost s and her m ont hl y supe r v i si on f ees; ( 4) was t er m i nat ed from t he Aust i n T r ansi t i onal T r eat m ent C ent er f or usi ng a cel l phone wi t hout per m i ssi on; and ( 5) f ai l ed t o be gi n he r af t er car e pr ogr am at T r eat m ent Associ at es.

O n D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , H e r n a n d e z f ile d a m o tio n f o r n e w tr ia l, a s s e r tin g th a t s h e d id n o t a d e q u a te ly 3 pr esent her case t o t he t r i al cour t due t o ne rv ousness and t hat she di d no t r epor t t o he r pr obat i on o f f i cer because she was st r uggl i ng t o car e f or her fo ur t een- y ear - ol d chi l d dur i ng h er di v or ce. T he t r i al cour t di d no t ru l e o n H e rn a n d e z’ s m o ti o n ; th e re fo re , i t w a s o v e rr u l e d b y o p e ra ti o n o f l a w . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21

. 8(a ), (c). 2 H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN
. § 481. 115( a) -( b) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Pursua n t to a pl ea ag re ement w it h the Sta te, Her nandezpl eaded g uil ty to the c harg ed offense and “t ru e” to the enh ance me nt paragraphs containe d in the Octob er 4, 20 07 ind ictme nt. T he trial cou rt sent enced Her nandez to ten y ears’ i ncarcerati on i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Just ic e ( “TD CJ -I D” ) a n d i mposed a $1, 500 fine. The s entenc e w as
sus pended, and Her nan dezw as pla ced on c ommunit y su per v is ion for a per iod of four y ears. On O cto ber

27, 2008, the State file d a motion to re v oke, co ntendi ng thatH er nandez had v iola te d nu m e ro u s p ro visio n s o f he r co m m u n it y sup e rvisio n
. Th e tri a l co u rtco n d u ct ed 2
a he a rin g on th e St a te ’s m o ti o n to revo ke on De ce m b e r 2 , 20 0 8 . A t t h e he a rin g, Her nandezpl eaded “ tr ue” to all of the a ll eg ati ons cont ain ed in the S tate’ s mot ion

. The tr ial
cour t found t hat H er nandezhad v iol ated the p ro v is ions o f h er co mmunity

su per v is ion , re v oked her

co mmunity

su per v is ion , and se ntenc ed her to ten y ears’ i ncarcerati on i n the TDC J- ID w it h no fine. The tr ial co urt al so cer ti fied H er nandez ’s r ight to appeal , and sh e
now br ing s t his appeal

. W e aff ir m. 3 I. A NDE RS B R I EF Pursuantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ), Hernand ez’sT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he pr o se r esponse nee d no t com pl y wi t h t he 4 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R a t he r, t he res po ns e s ho ul d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co urt shou l d con si der i n de ci di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i ls o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 3 cour t- appoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, stat ing thathi s rev iew of the record y iel ded no g ro unds or er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n be pre d ica ted. Al thoug h counsel ’s br ief does not adv ance any arg uabl e g ro unds of error , i t doe s p re sent
a professi onal ev alu ati on of the re cord demons tr ati ng w hy there are no arg uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on a ppeal

. See In r e Sc hul m an , 25 2 S. W .3 d 40 3, 4 07 n .9 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers br ief need not spec ific all y adv ance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of
er ro r if co unsel finds none, bu t it m u st p ro v ide r ecord r eferenc es to t he facts and procedu ra l h ist o ry

and setout per

ti nent leg al author it ies .” ) (c it ing Hawki ns v. State , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 43- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr ist i 2003, no pet .) ); Staf for d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 10 n. 3 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991)

. In c ompli ance w it h Hi

gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 (Tex . Cr im. App. [Panel Op. ] 197 8), Hernan dez’s cou nsel has caref ully d iscussed why , und er co ntrolling auth ority , the re
are no errors i n the trial cou rt ' s j u d gm e nt. Coun sel has inf orme d this Court th at he has: (1 ) ex amined the re cord and found no arg uabl e g ro unds to ad v ance on appe al, ( 2) se rv ed
a c opy of the b ri ef and co unsel ’s moti on to w it hdra w on H er nandez , and ( 3) i nformed Hernan dez of

her rig ht to rev iew the record and to f ile a pro se respo nse wi thin th irty days. 4 See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Staff ord , 813 S.W .2d a t 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S. W .3d a t 409 n.23

. Mo re than an a deq uate per iod of tim e h a s p a ssed, a nd Her nandezhas not filed a pro s e r espon se. Se e In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

.N o subst i t ut e counsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d Her nande z wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 5 by t he T ex as C ou rt o f C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , sh e m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a t t orn ey t o fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret i on ary r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m th e d a te o fe ith e r th is o p in io n o r th e la s t t im e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g th a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is 4 II. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the proceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Oh io , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e ent ire r e cord a nd c ounse l' s b ri ef and hav e found not hing tha t w ould arguably support an app eal. Se e Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 26- 28 (Tex

. C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t i t c onsi der ed th e i ss u e s ra is ed i n the br iefs and rev iew ed th e r ecord for
rev ersible error but f oun d no ne, the cou rt of app eals m et the requireme nt of Te x as Rule
o f Appel lat e Procedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d a t 5 0 9

. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. III
. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cordance w it h An ders , H er nandez ’s att or ney has as ked thi s C our t for per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel

. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see al so In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (c it ing Je ffer y v . St ate , 903 S.W .2d 7 76, 7 79- 80 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 199 5, no pet. ) ( not ing th a t “[i]f an att orne y

believes the ap pea l is f riv olou s, he m ust
w it hdr aw from repr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from repr esent ati on, t he appo int ed atto rney must f ile a mo tion to w ithdra w accom pan ied by a brief showi ng the ap pellat e cou rt t h a tt h e a p p e a l is f ri vo lo u s ”) (c it a t io n s o m it t e d ))

. W e gra n tco u n s e l’ s m o t io n t o wit h d ra w. W it hin fiv e day s o f the dat e of thi s C our t’ s o pin ion , c ounse l is order e d t o s e nd a copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment t o H er nandezand to ad v is e H er nandezof herr ig ht t o fil e a p e t it io n fo r d is c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 5C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch

i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3; 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a ry re v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f R u l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u le s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4. 5 S.W .3d a t 412 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 6 70, 6 73 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006)

.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.