M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-15-2019

Case Style:

Felipe Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 04-18-00265-CR

Judge: Luz Elena D. Chapa

Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Roberto Serna
Robert Lee Little

Defendant's Attorney: Alberto M. Ramon

Description:






Felipe Hernandez pled guilty to bail jumping/failure to appear and pled true to an
enhancement allegation. The jury found Hernandez guilty and found the enhancement allegation
true, and it recommended a sentence of fifteen years in prison and a $5000 fine. The trial court
imposed sentence in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Hernandez timely appealed the judgment.
Hernandez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a
professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v.
04-18-00265-CR


- 2 -
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the
brief and motion to withdraw to Hernandez and informed him of his rights in compliance with the
requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014). This court provided appellant a copy of
the appellate record and then set a deadline for Hernandez to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief
was filed.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We conclude the record
presents no arguable grounds for appellate review and the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, our review of the record discloses that
the written judgment does not accurately reflect the proceedings in that it recites that Hernandez
pled “not guilty” and does not reflect the enhancement allegation or finding. We therefore modify
the judgment to reflect that Hernandez pled “Guilty” to the offense charged, he pled “True” to an
enhancement allegation, and the jury found the enhancement allegation “True.” See French v.
State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court authorized to reform
judgment to “make the record speak the truth”); Padilla v. State, No. 04-16-00389-CR, 2017 WL
2791323, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to accurately reflect degree of offense and
pleas and findings on enhancement allegations); Wiedenfeld v. State, 450 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to accurately reflect
proceedings in trial court).

Outcome: We grant the motion to withdraw filed by Hernandez’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.