Andre Roberts v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 4, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-09-00040-CR ____________ ANDRE RISHAWN ROBERTS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 92382 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of marijuana. Pursuant to an agreement with the State on punishment, on March 10, 2008, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1000 fine. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate appellant s guilt. After finding three of the allegations in the State s motion true, on December 1, 2008, the trial court adjudicated appellant s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for nine years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
