Treveon Shelldrick Poole 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. 09-21-00412-CR __________________ TREVEON SHELLDRICK POOLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-02-01852-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Treveon Shelldrick Poole (“Appellant” or “Poole”) for aggravated robbery, and the indictment also alleged that during the commission of the offense or immediate flight therefrom Poole used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2). Poole pleaded “not guilty,” but the jury found Poole guilty as charged in the indictment. After hearing evidence at the punishment phase of the trial, the jury assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement. Poole filed a notice of appeal. 1 On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Poole to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Poole. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 82728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 Poole may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on August 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 24, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 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.
