Billington v. State

Full title: WILLIE JAMES BILLINGTON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Jul 31, 2008

Nos. 12-07-00285-CR, 12-07-00286-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 12-07-00285-CR, 12-07-00286-CR

Opinion delivered July 31, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH

Appealed from the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Willie James Billington appeals his conviction for two counts of robbery. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We affirm.

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, set forth in separate indictments. Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs included in the indictment for each offense. The paragraphs related to two previous felonies committed by Appellant. There was no agreement between Appellant and the State as to the appropriate punishment for the charged offenses. The trial court found Appellant guilty of both offenses and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for each. These appeals followed.

Analysis Pursuant toAnders v. California

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.California and Gainous v. State. The brief shows that Appellant's counsel diligently reviewed the appellate record and considered the applicable law and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), Appellant's counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.¹ We have likewise examined the record for reversible error and have found none. SeeBledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in each case. We carried the motions for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motions for leave to withdraw are hereby granted and the trial court's judgments are affirmed. All other pending motions are overruled as moot.