David Bruce Adams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 368th District Court of Williamson County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00191-CR David Bruce Adams, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 03-357-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant David Bruce Adams guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003). The jury assessed a forty-five year prison term for each count. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel s brief. In it, appellant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not file motions suggested by appellant, that his counsel on appeal was ineffective because he filed an Anders brief, and that there were constitutional violations during his trial which I will not elaborate at this time. On this record, we find no support for the ineffective assistance claims, and appellant s vague suggestion of other constitutional errors presents nothing for review. We have reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and the pro se response. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. __________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: February 3, 2005 Do Not Publish 2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.