Lamar Lovett v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00865-CR Lamar Lovett, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-10-904094, HONORABLE CHARLES F. BAIRD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant Lamar Lovett of attempted capital murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and two counts of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยงยง 19.03(a)(2), 22.02(b)(1), 22.021(a)(1)(A)(i) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at seventy years imprisonment for attempted capital murder, twenty years imprisonment for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and fifty years imprisonment for each count of aggravated sexual assault. Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86 87 (1988). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have received two written responses from the appellant a pro se brief and a supplemental pro se brief. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellant counsel s brief and appellant s written responses, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. The points of error raised in appellant s pro se briefs have no arguable merit. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. _______________________________________ Diane M. Henson, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: August 1, 2012 Do Not Publish 2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.
