Marvin Roberts AKA Marvin Lawayne Roberts v. The State of Texas Appeal from 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Affirmed; Opinion Filed May 25, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01000-CR No. 05-17-01001-CR MARVIN ROBERTS AKA MARVIN LAWAYNE ROBERTS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-81772-2015, 380-81746-2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Stoddart Marvin Roberts a/k/a Marvin Lawayne Roberts appeals the revocation of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded guilty to violation of a protective order and assault on a public servant. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court found appellant guilty, sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment, probated for seven years, and assessed a $500 fine in each case. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging several violations of the conditions of community supervision. Appellant pleaded true in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at five years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). 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. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. /Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 171000F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARVIN ROBERTS AKA MARVIN LAWAYNE ROBERTS, Appellant No. 05-17-01000-CR On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-81772-2015. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Lang and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 25th day of May, 2018. –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARVIN ROBERTS AKA MARVIN LAWAYNE ROBERTS, Appellant No. 05-17-01001-CR On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-81746-2016. Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Justices Lang and Myers participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 25th day of May, 2018. –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.