Daniel Hernandez v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-24-00391-CR
___________________________

DANIEL HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 485th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1702698

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach
MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2022, appellant Daniel Hernandez pled guilty to bodily-injury assault of a

family member with a previous conviction for an offense involving family violence, a

third-degree felony, and the trial court placed him on five years’ deferred-adjudication

community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A). In

September 2024, the State filed its amended petition to adjudicate, alleging that

Hernandez had violated his probation in four ways. At the hearing on the State’s

motion, Hernandez remained silent, so the trial court entered pleas of not true to each

of the State’s allegations. After hearing evidence, the trial court found three of the

four allegations to be true, adjudicated Hernandez guilty, and assessed his sentence at

ten years’ confinement but suspended the imposition of sentence and placed

Hernandez on four years’ community supervision and added as a condition that he

serve an additional 90 days in jail. See id. § 12.34; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

42A.053. Hernandez appealed.

Hernandez’s court-appointed attorney, after determining that the appeal is

frivolous, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a supporting brief. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and

brief meet the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S.

Ct. at 1400. Additionally, complying with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Hernandez

with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw; informed him of his right to file a

2
pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should

this court declare his appeal frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim App.

2014). Hernandez had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but

did not do so. The State declined to file a brief.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have determined

that, but for a minor error in the judgment, this appeal is wholly frivolous and without

merit. Nothing in the record supports the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

We note that when guilt is adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside

the order deferring adjudication, including any fines previously imposed. Akhil v. State,

No. 02-24-00311-CR, 2025 WL 2007326, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 17, 2025,

no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d

361, 363 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (citing Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497,

501–02 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)). At the adjudication hearing, the trial court did not

pronounce any fine. The written judgment rendered by the trial court after the

adjudication hearing states on its first page that Hernandez owes no fine, but then, in

3
its special findings, states that he owes a “fine in the amount of $482 to run

concurrent with sentence.” 1 The bill of costs states that Hernandez owes no fine.

Because the trial court did not announce any fine as part of Hernandez’s

sentence, we reform the judgment to delete the reference on the second page to the

$482 fine. See Akhil, 2025 WL 2007326, at *1; Prescott v. State, No. 02-17-00158-CR,

2019 WL 2635559, at *5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication).

Except for the modification discussed above, we agree with counsel that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Having reformed the judgment to

exclude reference to the fine, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment as modified. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

/s/ Mike Wallach
Mike Wallach
Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 21, 2025

1
Although it is unclear whether the trial court intended for this finding to
impose a fine despite omitting a fine on the first page, we nevertheless address the
finding in an abundance of caution. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 43.09.

4