Michael Ratliff v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Opinion issued February 17, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-20-00337-CR
———————————
MICHAEL RATLIFF, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1522186
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Ratliff, was charged by indictment with the offense of
capital murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a)(7)(A). Appellant pleaded not guilty,
proceeded to jury trial, and was convicted of the charged offense. The trial court
sentenced appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Because
the State did not seek the death penalty, this sentence was mandatory. See TEX.
PENAL CODE § 12.31a). 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 (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; 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; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that he sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was provided a copy of the
record and filed a pro se response.
2
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 (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–
28 (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.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Allen C. Isbell must
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of
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 v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
3
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4