Darius Xavier Wood v. State

Opinion issued October 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-14-00181-CR

____________

DARIUS XAVIER WOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1303774

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Darius Xavier Wood, pleaded guilty the offense of aggravated

robbery. The trial court judge deferred adjudication and appellant was placed on

community supervision for seven years. Following a hearing on State’s First

Amended Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of

probation, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 10

years’ confinement.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant

and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has

not filed a response.

2

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds

exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Kurt B. Wentz must immediately send the notice required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

1

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.

1997).

3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

4