Blake Joseph Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 9, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-09-00829-CR NO. 14-09-00830-CR ____________ BLAKE JOSEPH SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1199071 & 1199376 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant plead guilty, without an agreement on punishment, to two charges of aggravated robbery. After a pre-sentence investigation, on September 16, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant in each case to confinement for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and entered a deadly weapon finding in each case. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, which was denied after a hearing on November 23, 2009. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes these appeals are 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). On August 23, 2010, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel s brief. We have carefully reviewed the records, counsel=s brief, and appellant s response, and we agree that these appeals are 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justice Yates and Sullivan. Do Not Publish Tex.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.
