Martin Monge Hernandez v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed December 4, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00108-CR
__________

MARTIN MONGE HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 161st District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-22-0010-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Martin Monge Hernandez, pled nolo contendere to the offense of
murder, a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b) (West Supp.
2024). Following a punishment trial, the jury assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for ninety-nine years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and a $10,000 fine.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and
supporting brief in which he represents that, after conducting a professional
evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable issues to present
on appeal. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 406–09. Counsel further certifies that he provided Appellant with a copy of the
brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the
clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to
review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a
petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68; Anders, 386 U.S. 738;
Kelly, 436 S.W.3d 313; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record and the brief, and we conclude that the appeal is without merit.2 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

1
Appellate counsel’s brief contains no legal analysis or citations to controlling authority foreclosing
any potential issues. It therefore fails to demonstrate that counsel conducted “a conscientious and thorough
review of the law and facts” as he claims and, as appellate counsel, is required of him. Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–08 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (The Anders brief provides appellate courts “with a roadmap for their review of the record
because the court itself must be assured that the attorney has made a legally correct determination that the
appeal is frivolous.”). Generally, neither we nor our sister courts accept boilerplate, inadequate briefs that
fall below legal and professional standards. See Limauro v. State, 675 S.W.3d 368, 375 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2023, no pet.); In re N.F.M., 582 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, no pet.) (en banc)
(“[C]ounsel’s brief does not explain why counsel has concluded the issue is frivolous . . . in a way that
allows appellant—without the assistance of a lawyer—to understand why [his] lawyer is not advocating on
[his] behalf, to evaluate counsel’s position, and to have a starting point to decide whether to file a pro se
brief.”). However, Appellant’s pro se filings reveal that he reviewed the record and had the opportunity to
advocate on his own behalf, and our independent review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate
issues. We thus affirm notwithstanding the inadequate briefing provided.
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
Appellant initially pled not guilty to the charged offense and invoked his right
to a jury trial. During the guilt/innocence phase, the State presented the testimony
of seventeen witnesses and introduced over two hundred exhibits. Evidence was
presented to the jury that around 1:30 a.m. on October 31, 2021, Appellant and his
co-actor fired nearly forty rounds at the victim, who was unarmed, while he was
standing outside his vehicle in a crowded parking lot. Appellant sped out of the
parking lot and led police on a high-speed pursuit through Odessa until he and his
co-actor were apprehended. Inside Appellant’s vehicle, police found a handgun, a
rifle, body armor, a clown mask, and the same type of ammunition collected from
the victim’s body. After the State rested its case-in-chief, Appellant changed his
plea to no contest and the case proceeded to the punishment phase before the jury.
After considering the testimony of the victim’s daughter, the jury assessed
Appellant’s punishment at ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The trial court
sentenced Appellant accordingly. On this record, we conclude that there are no
arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 826–27 & n.6.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE
December 4, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3