Luke Myers v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 21st District Court of Lee County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00696-CR NO. 03-10-00697-CR Luke Myers, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 7173 & 7174, HONORABLE TERRY L. FLENNIKEN, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Luke Myers pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and pleaded true to enhancement allegations. He did not have an agreement as to punishment. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed sentence of concurrent prison terms of fifty years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for evading arrest. Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed and no extension of time to file a pro se brief has been requested. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Jeff Rose, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose Affirmed Filed: May 11, 2011 Do Not Publish 2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.
