Randy Alexander Reyes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 12, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00155-CR No. 05-14-00156-CR No. 05-14-00157-CR No. 05-14-00158-CR RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-35901-U, F13-34158-U, F13-34208-U, F13-34209-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers Randy Alexander Reyes appeals his convictions for burglary of a habitation, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (two offenses), and possession of alprazolam in an amount less than twenty-eight grams within a drug-free zone. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03(a)(2), 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.117(a), (b), 481.134(e) (West 2010 & Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment for burglary; twenty-five years’ imprisonment for each aggravated robbery; and two years’ confinement in State jail for possession of alprazolam. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 140155F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant No. 05-14-00155-CR Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F11-35901-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices Bridges and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered January 12, 2015. -3- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant No. 05-14-00156-CR Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-34158-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices Bridges and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered January 12, 2015. -4- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant No. 05-14-00157-CR Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-34208-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices Bridges and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered January 12, 2015. -5- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant No. 05-14-00158-CR Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13-34209-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices Bridges and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered January 12, 2015. -6-

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.