Court Opinion

ID: 9892858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 06:09:11.584736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:47.076001
License: Public Domain

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
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

                                         –2–
      TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. We affirm the judgment.

                                       /Emily Miskel/
                                       EMILY MISKEL
                                       JUSTICE

Goldstein, J., concurring.

220717f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47

                                     –3–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

PABLO HERNANDEZ, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00717-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-76438-Q.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 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.

                                       –4–