Hunter Gladney v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 13-24-00535-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-24-00535-CR, 13-24-00536-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

HUNTER GLADNEY, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 148TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

On May 22, 2017, appellant Hunter Gladney pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery,

a first-degree felony, in trial court cause number 16FC-0294E. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE

1 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-24-00535-CR. ANN. § 29.03. On the same day, appellant pleaded guilty to robbery, a second-degree

felony, in trial court cause number 17FC-0838E. 2 See id. § 29.02. In both causes, the

trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of

eight years each, and later extended the duration of appellant’s community supervision

by two years. On September 9, 2024, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s

community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in 16FC-0294E, alleging that appellant

violated twelve conditions of his community supervision. On the same day, the State filed

a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in 17FC-

0838E, alleging that appellant violated eighteen conditions of his community supervision.

Appellant pleaded true to each and every violation alleged in the State’s motion to revoke

in both causes. As to each cause, the trial court revoked appellant’s community

supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed six years’ imprisonment, to run

concurrently. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s orders revoking his community

supervision and adjudicating him guilty in both causes. Appellant’s court-appointed

counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

2 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-24-00536-CR.

2 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion

to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant

of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing that response,

and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and

(4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that

only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten

days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. In both cases, appellant neither filed a timely motion

seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so.

Appellant did not file a pro se response in either case.

3 II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

4 IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the 24th day of April, 2025.