Stephen Kyle Hubbard v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued December 2, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

appellant’s sentence at 6 years in prison, within the applicable sentencing range. See id. at § 12.33(a). The trial court certified that, though this is a plea-bargain case, appellant had permission to appeal and had the right of appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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 he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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 he has delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response after getting access to the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, a copy of the record has been sent

3

to appellant for review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant filed both a pro se Anders brief response and a supplement.

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 the 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); 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.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Thomas J. Lewis must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

4

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-12-00480-CR ——————————— STEPHEN KYLE HUBBARD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1334845 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Stephen Kyle Hubbard, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of manslaughter, pursuant to an agreed recommendation by the State that his sentence be capped at 12 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.04 (Vernon 2013). Following a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed