# Hassan Abdul Worthy v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 2, 2016 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4021322 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** August 2, 2016 - **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/4021322 ## Opinion text Opinion issued August 2, 2016. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-01024-CR ——————————— HASSAN ABDUL WORTHY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1381458 MEMORANDUM OPINION Hassan Abdul Worthy pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The plea was without an agreed recommendation by the State on sentencing. The trial court sentenced Worthy to 45 years imprisonment. The most recent trial court certification of defendant’s right of appeal indicates this was not a plea-bargain case and Worthy had the right to appeal. Worthy’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 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 provided Worthy with a form motion for access to a copy of the record, but Worthy did not file this motion with the Court. The deadline for his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief was due on June 22, 2016. Worthy filed no response and requested no extension of time. 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 2 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, 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 Kevin P. Keating must immediately send Worthy the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle. 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/4021322. Public record. Not legal advice.