Javier Hernandez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 207th District Court of Hays County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-16-00362-CR Javier Hernandez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-15-0047, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant Javier Hernandez guilty of the felony offense of family violence assault-strangulation and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B) (family violence assaultstrangulation), 12.34 (third-degree felony punishment). Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response. We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the proceedings below and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland Affirmed Filed: August 25, 2017 Do Not Publish 2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.
