State of Texas v. John Joe Roades ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-0087-CR
NO. 07-12-0088-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 11, 2012
FERNANDO ROBLES DUARTE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF HEMPHILL COUNTY;
NOS. 2850 & 2851; HONORABLE STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Fernando Robles Duarte appeals his convictions of fraudulent use or
possession of identifying information and tampering with government records and his
sentence of two years in state jail and a fine of $2,000 in each case. After pleading
guilty to the offenses, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication for three years
pursuant to a plea bargain. Three months later, the State sought to have appellant
adjudicated guilty. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders 1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he
concluded that the appeals were without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel
included a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there
was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated
May 21, 2012, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or
response by June 20, 2012, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal which included 1) the sufficiency of the evidence,
2) objections to the admission of hearsay evidence, 3) error in the assessment of
punishment, and 4) the effectiveness of counsel. However, he has offered an
explanation as to why each issue is without merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with
counsel’s conclusions.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are
affirmed. 2
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2