Court Opinion

ID: 9398025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-29 09:08:36.96484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.063089
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
      Second Appellate District of Texas
               at Fort Worth
            ___________________________

                 No. 02-21-00184-CR
                 No. 02-21-00185-CR
                 No. 02-21-00186-CR
                 No. 02-21-00187-CR
            ___________________________

                PAUL HILL, Appellant

                           V.

                THE STATE OF TEXAS

        On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3
                   Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 1517718D, 1517721D, 1517723D, 1582677D

       Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                   I. INTRODUCTION

      In four separate but related cases, Appellant Paul Hill pleaded guilty to

engaging in organized criminal activity, theft of property from an elderly person,1

money laundering, and bail jumping. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.03(a), (f)(3)(A),

34.02(e)(2), 38.10(f), 71.02(a).   Hill entered his pleas without an agreement on

punishment.    The trial court sentenced Hill to eighty-five years for engaging in

criminal activity (and eighty-five years on each of the three theft counts in the same

case to which Hill pleaded guilty), twenty years for theft of property from an elderly

person, ten years for money laundering, and ten years for bail jumping and ordered

that his sentences will run concurrently.

      On appeal, Hill’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which

he argues that the appeal is frivolous.         Counsel’s motion and brief meet the

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738,

744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State,

counsel provided Hill with copies of his brief and motion to withdraw, he informed

      1
        In one case (to which we have assigned appellate cause number 02-21-00184-
CR), the indictment charged Hill with one count of engaging in organized criminal
activity and four felony theft counts. Hill pleaded guilty to the first four counts of the
indictment, and the State waived the fifth count. The other three cases all involved
single-count indictments, to which Hill pleaded guilty.

                                            2
Hill of his right to file a pro se response and to review the record, and he mailed Hill a

pro se form to request the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).2 Hill has not filed a pro se response, and the State

has filed a letter in which it stated that it agreed with appointed counsel that the

appeal is frivolous and therefore that it will not reply to the motion to withdraw and

the Anders brief supporting it filed by Hill’s counsel.

       After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel fulfills the requirements of Anders

and files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, this court is

obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any

arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant’s behalf. See Stafford v. State,

       2
         Nowhere in his brief or motion does Hill’s counsel certify that he informed
Hill of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court declare his appeal
frivolous, which is also required under Kelly. 436 S.W.3d at 319. We accept counsel’s
Anders brief and motion despite this omission, however, because by rule, within five
days after we hand down our opinion, counsel is required to “send his client a copy of
the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro
se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.” Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. A petition
for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.3(a). And a petition for discretionary review must be
filed “within 30 days after either the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc
reconsideration was overruled by the court of appeals.” Tex. R. App. P. 68.2(a).
Accordingly, even if Hill’s counsel did not provide Hill this necessary information in
his Anders letter, we have provided Hill with the requisite information here, and we
are confident that counsel will provide Hill the requisite information when complying
with Rule 48.4. See Loza v. State, No. 02-22-00078-CR, 2023 WL 2926439, at *1 n.1
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 13, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).

                                             3
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

      After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel

that this appeal is wholly without merit; we have found nothing in the record that

might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Dana Womack

                                                     Dana Womack
                                                     Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: May 25, 2023

                                           4