Joseph Hernandez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Appellant pled true to the allegations that he had violated the terms of his community supervision, his probation was revoked, and he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to ten years imprisonment on both counts and a fine of $5,000 on one count.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
