Latrell Devonne Robinson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 264th District Court of Bell County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-0272-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 21, 2012 ______________________________ LATRELL DEVONNE ROBINSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________ FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY; NO. 67,455; HON. MARTHA J. TRUDO, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Latrell Devonne Robinson (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at fifty years in prison. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. Appellant filed a response questioning the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel, the purported interjection of supposition by the prosecutor, and the availability of an instruction on a lesser-included offense. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed each phase of the trial, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the legitimacy of the punishment levied. Thereafter, he concluded that no reversible error appeared of record. We also conducted our own review of the record and appellant s pro se response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we too conclude that no arguable issue exists meriting a continuation of the appeal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.1 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion. 2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.
