Shawna Hooey v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 01-24-00272-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 5, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00272-CR ——————————— SHAWNA HOOEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1696560

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury found appellant, Shawna Hooey, guilty of the offense of felony

murder1 and assessed her punishment at confinement for fifty years. Appellant

timely filed a notice of appeal.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(3). Appellant’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 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and

legal authority. See id. at 744; 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 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 has informed the Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the

Anders brief and her motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of her

right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.

Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate

record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re

2 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that she had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to her counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

2 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a

response to her counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record, 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 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 appellant may challenge a holding that there

is no arguable ground for an 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.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney BreAnna Schwartz must immediately send

3 Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeal and that appellant may, on her 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 appellant 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 other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Caughey, and Guiney.

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