David Batts v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 240th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 13, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-10-00648-CR NO. 14-10-00649-CR NO. 14-10-00650-CR ____________ DAVID BATTS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 50924, 50925, 50926 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery and one charge of aggravated assault. On June 11, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for fifty-five (55) years on each charge of aggravated robbery and fifteen (15) years on the charge of aggravated assault, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal in each case 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 records 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. In each case, we have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. 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, in each case the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison. Do Not Publish Tex.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.
