Opinion issued August 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00033-CR

NO. 01-18-00034-CR

———————————

SCOTT RICHARD PENDERGRAFT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 262nd District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1512987 & 1512988

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Scott Richard Pendergraft, pleaded no contest to the second-degree 

felony offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information in the 

underlying trial court cause number 1512987.

1

 Appellant also pleaded no contest

 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 32.51(a)(1)(A), (E), (b)(1), (c)(3) (West 2011).
2

for the state-jail-felony offense of securing execution of a document by deception in 

the underlying trial court cause number 1512988.

2

 Both of these no-contest pleas 

were entered without agreed punishment recommendations from the State, pending 

a presentence investigation (“PSI”) report and hearing.

At the PSI hearing, the trial court found appellant guilty as charged and 

assessed his punishment at five years’ confinement for the first charge and one year’s 

confinement in state jail for the second charge, with both sentences to be served 

concurrently. These sentences are within the applicable sentencing ranges.

3 The 

trial court certified that these were not plea-bargained cases, and that appellant had 

the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A). Appellant timely filed a 

notice of appeal and the same, new counsel was appointed in both cases.

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an

Anders brief in both cases, stating that the record presents no reversible error and 

that, therefore, these appeals are without merit and are 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. 

 

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 32.46(a)(1), (b)(4) (West 2011).

3 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33(a), 12.35(a) (West 2011).
3

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 pro 

se response after getting access to the records. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel has certified that he has sent the

form motion for pro se access to the records to appellant for his response. See Kelly 

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed 

an amended pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire records in these appeals, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable 

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are 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) (reviewing court is not to address 
4

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 judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s 

motions to withdraw in both cases.

4 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Terrence 

Gaiser must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with 

the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other motions 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

4 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals

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).