Rayshaun Boston v. The State of Texas Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 18, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00398-CR NO. 14-16-00399-CR NO. 14-16-00400-CR NO. 14-16-00401-CR RAYSHAUN BOSTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1381606, 1384692, 1384694, and 1393149 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Rayshaun Boston appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery.1 Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes each appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The 1 Appellant also appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. See No. 14-1600402-CR, Boston v. State. This opinion does not include that appeal. 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). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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 each 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Donovan, and Jewell. Do Not Publish — Tex.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.
