Fernando Calderon v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
Date FiledJuly 13, 2026
Docket06-25-00145-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-25-00145-CR
FERNANDO CALDERON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 34711CR
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Fernando Calderon pled guilty to the third-degree felony of evading arrest or detention
with a motor vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (Supp.). Calderon signed
the written-plea admonishments and proceeded to a hearing on punishment. After his open plea
of guilty and a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Calderon to ten years’ incarceration.
Calderon appeals.
Calderon’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history
of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings.
Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v.
California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this
appeal.
On January 28, 2026, counsel sent copies of the brief, the record, and a letter outlining
Calderon’s pro se rights to him. Calderon was informed of his rights to review the record and
file a pro se response within thirty days of receipt of the documents. In his motion to withdraw,
counsel also certified that he sent a copy of the motion to withdraw via certified mail to
Calderon. On February 17, 2026, we received Calderon’s motion for extension of time to file his
2
brief, which was granted. On March 25, 2026, Calderon filed an “Emergency Pro Se Motion to
Abate Appeal, Hold Motion to Withdraw in Abeyance, Appoint Substitute Appellate Counsel, or
Alternatively Compel Anders/Kelly[1] Compliance and Extend Time.” On April 6, 2026, counsel
filed with this Court a copy of his letter to Calderon wherein he states he sent the appellate
record to Calderon on March 31, 2026. On April 7, 2026, this Court denied Calderon’s motion
to abate the appeal and appoint new counsel, but we granted his motion to compel compliance
and for an extension of time. The extension allowed Calderon to file a brief on or before May
22, 2026.
By letter dated June 8, 2026, this Court informed Calderon that the case would be set for
submission on June 29. We received neither a pro se response from Calderon nor any further
motions requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue
supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In
the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
1
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
3
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: June 29, 2026
Date Decided: July 13, 2026
Do Not Publish
2
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days
from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this
Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4