Warren L. Houston v. The State of Texas Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00016-CR WARREN L. HOUSTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1386667 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Appellant’s appointed counsel 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), 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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 7, 2016, this court issued an opinion affirming appellant’s conviction. Appellant subsequently notified this court that he had changed his address and requested an extension of time to file a pro se response. On February 2, 2016, this court granted appellant’s motion, reinstated the appeal, and directed the trial court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure. On March 16, 2016, this court received confirmation that appellant received the trial record. Appellant received two additional extensions of time to file his pro se response until May 16, 2016. On June 2, 2016, this court received correspondence from appellant informing the court that he had not received a copy of counsel’s Anders brief. On June 20, 2016, this court provided appellant a copy of counsel’s brief. As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and 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 Frost and Justices Boyce and Wise. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.