Kadarius Krisshawn Royston v. The State of Texas Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00135-CR NO. 09-18-00136-CR ____________________ KADARIUS KRISSHAWN ROYSTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 17-06-07964-CR, 17-06-07965-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Kadarius Krisshawn Royston pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery, and in each case, the trial court found that the evidence substantiated Royston’s guilt. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at sixty years of confinement in each case and ordered that the sentences would run concurrently. 1 Royston’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and conclude that the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State; 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 1, 2018, and on December 13, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Royston to file pro se briefs. Royston filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have determined that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief 2 the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on March 12, 2019 Opinion Delivered March 27, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Royston may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
