Kevin James Ringo v. The State of TexasAppeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00384-CR No. 10-12-00385-CR KEVIN JAMES RINGO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 10-05687-CRF-361 & 10-05688-CRF-361 MEMORANDUM OPINION Kevin James Ringo was indicted in trial court cause number 10-05687-CRF-361 for the offense of aggravated robbery occurring on or about October 5, 2010, and he was indicted in trial court cause number 10-05688-CRF-361 for the offense of aggravated robbery occurring on or about November 4, 2010. Ringo pleaded guilty to both offenses of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years confinement for each offense. We affirm. Ringo s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in each cause number asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Ringo of his right to submit briefs on his own behalf. Ringo did not file a brief in either cause number, and the State did not file a response. Counsel's briefs evidence a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in these appeals, we determine the appeals to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments. Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Ringo in each cause number is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Ringo a copy of our decision, notify Ringo of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. Ringo v. State Page 2 AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed June 27, 2013 Do not publish [CR25] Ringo v. State Page 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.
