Leroy Robinson, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 13th District Court of Navarro County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00030-CR No. 10-15-00031-CR LEROY ROBINSON, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court Nos. D35440-CR & D35441-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant Leroy Robinson, Jr., of the offenses of possession of a penalty-group 1 controlled substance in an amount of less than one gram and obstruction/retaliation. The trial court assessed his punishment at nineteen months’ confinement in state jail and eighteen years’ imprisonment, respectively. These appeals ensued. We affirm. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed with this Court in each case a brief and motion to withdraw, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the briefs and counsel’s motions to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.’” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 1 Robinson v. State Page 2 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.2 See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s briefs and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 77980 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. In accordance with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Kelly v. State, counsel prepared and sent to Robinson an Appellant’s Motion for Access to Appellate Record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315 & 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Robinson signed the motion for access and sent it to this Court. We ordered counsel to obtain and send Robinson copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records and to simultaneously notify this Court, the State, the trial court, and the trial court clerk when counsel had completed the task. We received a notice from Robinson’s appellate counsel on August 27, 2015 that he had mailed, by certified mail return receipt requested, to Robinson a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. 2 Robinson v. State Page 3 Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgments to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed October 29, 2015 Do not publish [CR25] No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. 3 Robinson v. State Page 4
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.
