Darius Xavier Wood v. State ( 2014 )

Opinion issued October 21, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-14-00181-CR
____________
DARIUS XAVIER WOOD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1303774
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Darius Xavier Wood, pleaded guilty the offense of aggravated
robbery. The trial court judge deferred adjudication and appellant was placed on
community supervision for seven years. Following a hearing on State’s First
Amended Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of
probation, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 10
years’ confinement.
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
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 us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (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.).
Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant
and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has
not filed a 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, 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)
(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable
grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds
exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there
are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in
the 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 Kurt B. Wentz 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).
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4