Scott Patrick Hudson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS SCOTT PATRICK HUDSON, § No. 08-10-00301-CR Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 277th Judicial District Court § THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Williamson County, Texas § Appellee. (TC#09-1620-K277) § MEMORANDUM OPINION Scott Patrick Hudson appeals his conviction for recklessly causing serious bodily injury to a child, a lesser included offense of the charge contained in the indictment, injury to a child causing serious bodily injury.1 Appellant was sentenced to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. Appellant s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issues and is without merit. Appellate counsel states that he has studied the record and has found no error preserved for appeal that could serve as grounds for reversible error. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has filed a document with the court which we have liberally construed as a pro se brief. The State did not file a response to either counsel s Anders Brief or Appellant s pro se response. An appellate court may not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief, or those raised in a pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The Court may only consider: (1) whether the appeal is wholly frivolous, and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and found no reversible error; or (2) whether arguable grounds for appeal exist, and if so, remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Having carefully reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and Appellant s pro se response in this case, we agree that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issues and is without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal. Accordingly, the trial court s judgment is affirmed. May 9, 2012 CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ. (Do Not Publish) 1 See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2011). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
