David Louie Hearn v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 47th District Court of Randall County (majority)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-00322-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 28, 2012 DAVID LOUIE HEARN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 18,633-A; HONORABLE DAN L. SCHAAP, JUDGE Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, David Louie Hearn, entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to the offense of indecency with a child. 1 Pursuant to the plea bargain, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of eight years. Subsequently, appellant s community supervision was extended for one additional year. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant guilty of the offense. Appellant pleaded true to one of the allegations contained in the State s motion to adjudicate and, following a hearing on the issue of punishment, was 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยง 21.11(a) (West 2011). sentenced to serve 15 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court. Appellant s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744 45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 2 Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. 2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 3