KENDRICK SHAUELL WRIGHT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kendrick Shauell Wright appeals a judgment convicting him of the felony offense of assault of a family member.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (Vernon Supp.2010).   The trial court assessed punishment at three years' confinement.   Wright's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in which he states that no valid grounds for appeal exist and that any appeal would be frivolous.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).   Wright filed no response.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

The brief submitted by Wright's court-appointed counsel states his professional opinion that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and that any appeal would, therefore, lack merit.   See id.   Counsel's brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal.   See id.;   see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex.Crim.App.2008).

When we receive an Anders brief from a court-appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record.   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 case is “wholly frivolous”);  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).   In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the defendant files to his appointed counsel's Anders brief.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

In accordance with Anders and Bledsoe, we have reviewed the record and the Anders brief from Wright's appointed counsel.   We conclude that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel's motion to withdraw.¹

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Wright of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals.   See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6;  Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1997);  Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.)..  FN1. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Wright of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals.   See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6;  Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1997);  Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

Harvey Brown Justice