Orlando Govea v. The State of Texas Appeal from 119th District Court of Tom Green County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-16-00063-CR Orlando Govea, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B-15-0497-SB, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Orlando Govea pled guilty and judicially confessed to the felony offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. In addition, Govea pled true to an enhancement allegation that alleged a prior first-degree felony conviction for aggravated robbery. See id. After hearing evidence, including Govea’s testimony, the trial court assessed his punishment, enhanced pursuant to the repeat-offender punishment provision of the Penal Code, at confinement for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 12.42(c)(1). Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response. We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the proceedings below and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland Affirmed Filed: May 31, 2017 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.
