Anselmo Montes v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 6, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00328-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00328-CR ——————————— ANSELMO MONTES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1620203

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Anselmo Montes, was indicted for the first-degree felony offense

of murder. A jury found Montes guilty and sentenced him to eight years’

confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. On appeal, Montes’s appointed counsel 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 (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. Id. at 744; 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;

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

pet.).

Counsel advised Montes of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Montes of his

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Montes was granted access to the

appellate record. Montes filed a pro se response.

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 (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

2 grounds for reversal on appeal exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court determines whether appeal is wholly

frivolous or arguable grounds for appeal exist); 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 Thomas A. Martin must immediately send Montes 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 Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.

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