# Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 9, 2018 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4302746 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** August 9, 2018 - **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/4302746 ## 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 August 9, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00651-CR ——————————— HUNTER RYAN HAMILTON WOODS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1442018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods, was found guilty after a jury trial of the first-degree felony offense of murder.1 After the trial, the jury assessed his 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a)(2), (b) (West 2011). punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. This sentence is within the applicable sentencing range.2 The trial court certified that this was not a plea-bargain case, and that appellant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and new counsel was appointed. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, 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 this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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.). Appellant’s counsel has informed us that she has delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel has certified that she has sent a copy of the records to appellant for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32(a) (West 2011). 2 2014). Appellant has not filed any pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief and his deadline has expired. 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) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Patti Sedita must 3 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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 3 immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4302746. Public record. Not legal advice.