Arthur Jerome Hardeman v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00331-CR ARTHUR JEROME HARDEMAN APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1389767D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Arthur Jerome Hardeman entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in the amount of more than one gram but less than four grams. Hardeman also pleaded true to the State’s habitual-offender enhancement. A jury assessed punishment at twelve years’ incarceration. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Hardeman’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, the record demonstrates that Hardeman was notified of counsel’s motion to withdraw, provided a copy of the motion and brief, informed of his right to file a pro se response, and informed of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous; and concrete measures were taken to facilitate Hardeman’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Hardeman that he could file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State submitted a letter informing this court that it would not be providing briefing but reserved the right to do so if this court found an arguable ground for appeal. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 2 We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 25, 2016 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.
