From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel A
Aug 27, 2009
No. 07-09-0062-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-09-0062-CR

August 27, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appealed from the 110th District Court of Floyd County; No. 4363; Honorable William P. Smith, Judge.

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appellant, Robert Lopez, III, was convicted, in a two count indictment, of aggravated robbery, Count I, and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, Count II. Appellant was sentenced to 45 years confinement on Count I and 20 years confinement on Count II, all within the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with all sentences to be served concurrently. It is from this judgment that appellant appeals. We will affirm. Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of theAnders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his clienta copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant's right to file a prose petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.


Summaries of

Lopez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel A
Aug 27, 2009
No. 07-09-0062-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2009)
Case details for

Lopez v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LOPEZ, III, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel A

Date published: Aug 27, 2009

Citations

No. 07-09-0062-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2009)