Errick Lamar Proctor v. The State of Texas Appeal from 176th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 30, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00913-CR ERRICK LAMAR PROCTOR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1341677 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of murder. On October 4, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why 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 was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has complied with the Anders procedures set out in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant, and appellant was advised of the deadline to file any pro se response to counsel’s brief. On September 4, 2014, the court granted appellant an extension of time to file his pro se response until October 28, 2014, noting that no further extensions of time would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. As of this date, more than thirty days have passed since the deadline and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
