Case Information
*1 Opinion issued March 6, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals
For The First District of Texas ————————————
NO. 01-23-00390-CR
——————————— DEMONDRIAN MCWRIGHT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1661988 MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Demondrian McWright, guilty of the felony offense of murder, and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for eighty years. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
*2 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. , 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 her Anders brief and her motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Further, counsel provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record and a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 *3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel’s 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. , 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 grounds 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. Attorney Daucie Schindler must immediately send *4 appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. EX . R. A PP . P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
Clint Morgan Justice
Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Morgan.
Do not publish. T R. PP . P. 47.2(b).
[1] P ENAL C ODE NN . § 19.02.
[2] This Court also notified appellant that his counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s 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).
[3] Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeals and that appellant 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).