Randolph Glenn v. The State of Texas Appeal from 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed April 19, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01570-CR RANDOLPH GLENN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-76290-M MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Francis Randolph Glenn waived a jury, pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of murder, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the trial court sentenced appellant to imprisonment for thirty-five years. Although the trial court’s judgment in the clerk’s record incorrectly reflects a forty-year prison sentence, a judgment nunc pro tunc was signed by the trial court and filed in this Court on January 6, 2016, correcting the judgment to accurately reflect the thirty-five year sentence. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 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 appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 151570F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT RANDOLPH GLENN, Appellant No. 05-15-01570-CR On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-76290-M. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Brown and Schenck participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Punishment and Place of Confinement” is modified to show “35 Years Institutional Division, TDCJ.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered April 19, 2017. –3–

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.