In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00320-CR
JOSEPH HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B18698-1102, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
January 16, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Joseph Hernandez was convicted after a guilty plea of two counts of aggravated
assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the adjudication of his guilt was deferred for five
years, and he was placed on community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a
motion to proceed with adjudication of appellant’s guilt. Appellant pled true to the
allegations that he had violated the terms of his community supervision, his probation
was revoked, and he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment
on both counts and a fine of $5,000 on one count.
Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief,
wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the
appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter
sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and
of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. He also represented to this court that he
provided a copy of the appellate record to appellant. By letter, this court informed
appellant of his right to file a brief or response by December 22, 2014, if he wished to do
so. To date, no response has been received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal which included 1) the original indictment, the
original plea of guilty including the admonitions, the voluntariness of the guilty plea, and
the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) whether appellant was competent to plead true to the
violations of his probation, 3) the propriety of the sentence imposed, 4) whether the
written judgment accurately reflects the sentence imposed and properly applies any
credits, 5) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of appellant’s
probation, and 6) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, he explained why each
issue lacks merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon
doing so, we concur with counsel’s conclusions.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3