 |
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto 
|
|
||
|
Information |
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLawDate: 05-15-2019 Case Style: Felipe Hernandez v. The State of TexasCase Number: 04-18-00265-CR Judge: Luz Elena D. Chapa Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Plaintiff's Attorney: Roberto Serna 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 juryÕs verdict. Hernandez timely appealed the judgment. HernandezÕs 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 counselÕs 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 Ònot guiltyÓ and does not reflect the enhancement allegation or finding. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect that Hernandez pled ÒGuiltyÓ to the offense charged, he pled ÒTrueÓ to an enhancement allegation, and the jury found the enhancement allegation ÒTrue.Ó See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court authorized to reform judgment to Òmake the record speak the truthÓ); Padilla v. State, No. 04-16-00389-CR, 2017 WL 2791323, at *2-3 (Tex. App.ÑSan 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.ÑSan 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 HernandezÕs counsel and affirm the trial courtÕs judgment as modified.1 Plaintiff's Experts: Defendant's Experts: Comments: |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
