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-
Scott Patrick Hudson v. State
Combined Opinion