O rder filed June 23 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______ 

### No. 11

- 1 5

- 003 05

- C R

_____ __ ____ 

### JOANNA HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 th District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. D

- 44,330

O R D E R Joanna Hernandez, Appellant, pleaded not guilty to three counts of endangering a child. In all three counts, the jury convicted her of the offense, assessed her punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility , and recommended that her sen tence be suspended. The trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and placed Appellant on commun ity supervision for five years. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel a sserts that he has professionally2

and conscientiously examine d the record and applicable law and that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the br ief and advised A ppellant of h er right to review the r ecord and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has not filed a response

. It appears that c ourt

- appointed counsel has attempted to compl y with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex . App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we dis agree with court

- appointed counsel’s conclusion th at the appeal is frivolous and without merit

. We are of the opinion that there are arguable grounds for an appeal. In this regard, w e note that the offense for which Appellant was convicted requires that the danger to the children be “imminent.” T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.041(c) (West 2011 ) (“ A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or m ental impairment .”) ; s ee Garcia v. State , 367 S.W.3d 683 , 688

– 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moody v. State , No. 01

- 03

- 00685

- CR, 2004 WL 1472216, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Millslagle v. State , 81 S.W.3d 895, 898 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2002, pet. ref ’ d) ; Elder v. State , 993 S.W.2d 229, 230 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.)

. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, abate this proceeding, and remand the case to the trial cour t for the appointment of new appellate counsel. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We direct3

the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent A ppellant on appeal. The trial court shall furnish the name, address, tele phone number, and state bar number of new counsel in its order appointing new counsel. The order shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record, which shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before July 8 , 201 6 . Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this court thirty days from the date of the trial court’s appointment of new counsel. All other appellate deadlines shall be in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The motion to withdraw is granted ; the appeal is abat ed ; and the cause is remanded to the trial court in accordance with this order.

PER CURIAM

June 23 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J

. , and Bailey, J.