# Anray Lasard Woodard v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · October 17, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3113059

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** October 17, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3113059

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous

## Opinion text

Opinion issued October 17, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00063-CR
———————————
ANRAY LASARD WOODARD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 11-DCR-057114A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Anray Lasard Woodard, guilty of the offense of

burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West

2011). The trial court then found the allegations in an enhancement paragraph true

and sentenced him to 20 years in prison and a fine of $5,000. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 12.42(b), (f) (West Supp. 2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of

appeal.

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

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly

reviewed the record and 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.).

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

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

for review, and 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) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

2
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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 David Stiller must immediately send appellant the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.

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

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3113059. Public record. Not legal advice.