Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 18, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00717-CR PABLO HERNANDEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-76438-Q MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel After a jury found appellant Pablo Hernandez guilty of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child, the trial court entered judgment convicting Hernandez of continuous sexual abuse of a child as charged in the indictment and sentenced him to thirty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division. Hernandez appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California in which she stated that after thorough review, she found no grounds for appeal with potential merit. See 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Hernandez of her motion to withdraw, (2) provided him a copy of the motion and the brief, (3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response, (4) informed him of his right to seek discretionary review should this Court hold the appeal frivolous, and (5) took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This Court afforded Hernandez the opportunity to file a response, but he did not do so. After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel shall send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Hernandez and advise Hernandez of his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review. See

–2– TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. We affirm the judgment.

/Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE Goldstein, J., concurring.

220717f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT PABLO HERNANDEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00717-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F21-76438-Q.

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Goldstein and Garcia participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 18th day of October, 2023.

–4–