Robert Bryan Reeves v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 51st District Court of Tom Green County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-07-00502-CR Robert Bryan Reeves, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. A-07-0037-S, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Robert Bryan Reeves was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, enhanced by one prior felony conviction, and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 30.02 (West 2003). Appellant s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967). Appellant has filed a pro se brief complaining that the evidence does not show that the structure in question was a habitation. We affirm the judgment of conviction. We have considered the record, counsel s brief, and appellant s pro se brief and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).1 We overrule appellant s sole issue on appeal and affirm the 1 The court of criminal appeals in Bledsoe v. State held: When faced with an Anders brief and if a later pro se brief is filed, the court of appeals has two choices. It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the judgment of conviction. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.2 ___________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson Affirmed Filed: September 18, 2008 Do Not Publish cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may the court of appeals address the merits of the issues raised. 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted). 2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the 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. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 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.
