Alex Herberto Hernandez v. State
11-17-00116-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Appellant Alex Herberto Hernandez pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery; trial court deferred finding of guilt and placed him on 10 years' community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging nine violations of the community-supervision terms.
- At the adjudication hearing, Hernandez pleaded true to all nine allegations; the trial court found them true, revoked supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to life confinement and a $933.50 fine.
- Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw under Anders, asserting the appeal was frivolous and providing the required materials and notices to Hernandez.
- This court conducted an independent Anders/Schulman review of the record and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation and adjudication are appealable/challengeable | Hernandez argued the appeal raised grounds (not specified in record) to overturn revocation | State argued plea of true to violations and revocation were proper | Court: Appeal frivolous; plea of true alone suffices to support revocation; dismissal affirmed |
| Sufficiency of proof to revoke community supervision | Hernandez implicitly challenged sufficiency | State relied on plea of true to at least one alleged violation | Court: One violation is sufficient to support revocation; plea of true is enough |
| Ability to relitigate original plea in revocation appeal | Hernandez sought to contest original plea or plea proceedings | State argued issues from original plea cannot be raised in revocation appeal absent a void judgment | Court: Issues from original plea barred in revocation appeals unless judgment is void |
| Adequacy of appellate counsel’s Anders/Schulman compliance | Hernandez argued counsel ineffective or appeal not frivolous (no response filed) | Counsel provided Anders brief, records, and notices; requested withdrawal | Court: Counsel complied with Anders/Schulman; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (requires counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues when seeking to withdraw)
- Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for independent appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (one violation of community supervision is sufficient to revoke)
- Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (plea of true alone can support revocation)
- Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (issues from original plea cannot be raised on subsequent revocation appeal absent a void judgment)
- Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (same principle barring relitigation of original plea issues in revocation appeal)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (guidance on counsel’s duties when seeking to withdraw under Anders)