NO. 07-12-0056-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
AUGUST 22, 2012
______________________________
EDGAR HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 287TH DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY;
NO. 2677-A; HONORABLE GORDON H. GREEN, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following an open plea of guilty, Appellant, Edgar Hernandez, was convicted of
burglary. 1 In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 2 brief in support of a
motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
1
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (West 2011).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406
(Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling
authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the
requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to
Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so,
and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. 3 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to
exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at
409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
Background Facts
On November 11, 2010, while responding to a call of a suspicious vehicle, a
lieutenant and detective with the Muleshoe Police Department observed an individual,
later identified as Appellant, leaving a residence carrying an "armful of stuff." Upon
noticing the marked patrol vehicle, Appellant dropped the items and jumped into an
3
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & at 411 n.35.
2
SUV. Appellant's brother, Silverio Hernandez, 4 was driving the SUV and was
accompanied by two juveniles. Silverio pulled away from the residence and, according
to the lieutenant, headed in the direction of his patrol vehicle. The SUV collided with the
patrol vehicle, lost a front wheel and continued down the street. 5 Notwithstanding the
damage to the patrol vehicle, the lieutenant was able to give chase for about one-half
mile. Appellant, Silverio and the two juveniles abandoned the damaged SUV in a
vacant field and fled on foot. The lieutenant apprehended Silverio and the detective
apprehended the two juveniles. Appellant was not captured but did turn himself in the
next day.
The SUV was abandoned with all four doors remaining open and the back
window shattered from the collision. The lieutenant and detective observed various
items in the SUV, including electronics, video games, CDs, DVDs, firearms, jewelry and
a purse, all determined to be stolen property from victims of several burglaries.
After a jury was selected, Appellant entered a plea of guilty but elected to have
the jury hear punishment evidence. In addition to testimony about the burglaries,
evidence was presented that Appellant, while in the Bailey County Jail, violated certain
rules prohibiting inmates from engaging in certain conduct, including possession of
contraband. After presentation of the evidence, the State argued that a fifteen-year
sentence was reasonable punishment and urged the jury not to recommend community
4
Silverio was also convicted of burglary. His appeal bearing cause number 07-11-0057-CR was disposed
of this same date.
5
The lieutenant testified that approximately $10,000 damage was done to his patrol vehicle and he
sustained injuries to his knee and arm.
3
supervision. The defense pleaded for community supervision given that Appellant is
young, has a young daughter and cooperated with law enforcement. After deliberating,
the jury assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement and a $10,000 fine.
Analysis
By the Anders brief, counsel certifies he has found no meritorious issues to
present to this Court. See Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). We
have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-
frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109
S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such issues.
See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing the
record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds
for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4