Keith Deshun Smith v. The State of TexasAppeal from 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFI RM; Opinion Filed r%Iarch 29, 2013. In The Qtourt of ppca1 if iftl, itrict of cxa at 3atta No. 05-i 2-01340-CR KEITH DESHUN SIV11T11, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial I)istrict Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-62369-T MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang Keith DeShun Smith appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a knife. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN, § 29.03(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years imprisonment. 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 (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. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (rex. 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 We affirm the trial court s judgment Do Not Publish TEx. R. An. P.47 12 1340F.U05 -2- Qtourt of tppeat Jfiftl, Itrtct of Ixa at 1Oa1ta JUDGMENT KEiTH DESIIUN SMITH. Appellant No. 05-12-01 340-CR V TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 283rd Judicial I)istrict Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F I 0-62369-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. .Justices Francis and Evans participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered March 29, 201 3 / /7 / I / 7 V / $± _/_ d DUGLAS S LANG JUSE /
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.
