Robert Tyrone Lilly v. The State of Texas Appeal from 104th District Court of Taylor County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-19-00129-CR ROBERT TYRONE LILLY, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court No. 21263-B, Honorable Lee Hamilton, Presiding July 15, 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Robert Tyrone Lilly, appellant, appeals his conviction for evading arrest, enhanced. After an open plea, appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at thirty years’ imprisonment by the trial court. Appellant filed an appeal and counsel was appointed.1 1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Eleventh Court of Appeals, we are obligated to apply its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief in the cause. Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter informing appellant of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated June 7, 2019, this Court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by July 8, 2019. To date appellant has not filed a response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed several potential areas for appeal, which included whether the indictment was proper, the voluntariness of appellant’s guilty plea, whether the sentence was proper, and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
