Derek Hainey v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00444-CR NO. 03-05-00445-CR Derek Hainey, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. D-1-DC-04-301028 & D-1-DC-04-302772, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION At a bench trial, appellant Derek Hainey was found guilty of indecency with a child by contact and by exposure. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003). After finding that appellant had a previous felony conviction, the court assessed prison terms of thirty years for the contact offense and twenty years for the exposure offense. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. The judgments of conviction erroneously recite that appellant pleaded guilty. Otherwise, we agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably require that the convictions be reversed. Counsel s motions to withdraw are granted. The district court s judgments of conviction are modified to reflect that appellant pleaded not guilty. As modified, the judgments are affirmed. ___________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed Filed: May 26, 2006 Do Not Publish 2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.