Robert Keith Brooks v. State of Texas--Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed November 19, 2009 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ Nos. 11-09-00121-CR & 11-09-00122-CR __________ ROBERT KEITH BROOKS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. A-33,437 & A-33,438 MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Robert Keith Brooks of two offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, entered a deadly weapon finding in each case, and found the enhancement allegation in each case to be true. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for thirty years in each case. We dismiss the appeals. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case. The motions are supported by briefs in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with copies of his briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file responses to counsel s briefs. Responses have not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file petitions for discretionary review pursuant to TEX . R. APP . P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App. Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motions to withdraw are granted, and the appeals are dismissed. PER CURIAM November 19, 2009 Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J. 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.
