Fernando Duarte v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 31st District Court of Hemphill County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-0087-CR NO. 07-12-0088-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D DECEMBER 11, 2012 FERNANDO ROBLES DUARTE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________ FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF HEMPHILL COUNTY; NOS. 2850 & 2851; HONORABLE STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING Memorandum Opinion Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Fernando Robles Duarte appeals his convictions of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information and tampering with government records and his sentence of two years in state jail and a fine of $2,000 in each case. After pleading guilty to the offenses, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication for three years pursuant to a plea bargain. Three months later, the State sought to have appellant adjudicated guilty. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant s guilt. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders 1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeals were without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel included 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. By letter dated May 21, 2012, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by June 20, 2012, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) objections to the admission of hearsay evidence, 3) error in the assessment of punishment, and 4) the effectiveness of counsel. However, he has offered an explanation as to why each issue is without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed. 2 Per Curiam Do not publish. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2
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.
