Norman Charles Roberts, III v. The State of Texas Appeal from 71st District Court of Harrison County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-23-00075-CR NORMAN CHARLES ROBERTS, III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-0323X Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Norman Charles Roberts, III, entered an open plea of guilty to burglary of a building. After a presentence investigation report and additional evidence were received, the trial court sentenced Roberts to twenty months’ confinement in state jail. This appeal followed. Roberts’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Roberts’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Roberts with copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Roberts of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response. On August 2, 2023, we notified Roberts that his pro se response was due on September 1, 2023. By letter dated September 13, 2023, we notified Roberts that the case would be submitted on briefs on October 4, 2023. Roberts did not file a pro se response. 2 We reviewed the entire appellate record and independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Scott E. Stevens Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: October 4, 2023 October 5, 2023 Do Not Publish Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 1 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.
