Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 9, 2018
Docket01-16-00651-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State (Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Mitchell v. State
193 S.W.3d 153 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hunter Ryan Hamilton Woods v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-ryan-hamilton-woods-v-state-texapp-2018.