From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ringo v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jun 27, 2013
No. 10-12-00384-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)

Opinion

No. 10-12-00384-CR No. 10-12-00385-CR

06-27-2013

KEVIN JAMES RINGO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 10-05687-CRF-361 & 10-05688-CRF-361


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin James Ringo was indicted in trial court cause number 10-05687-CRF-361 for the offense of aggravated robbery occurring on or about October 5, 2010, and he was indicted in trial court cause number 10-05688-CRF-361 for the offense of aggravated robbery occurring on or about November 4, 2010. Ringo pleaded guilty to both offenses of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years confinement for each offense. We affirm.

Ringo's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in each cause number asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Ringo of his right to submit briefs on his own behalf. Ringo did not file a brief in either cause number, and the State did not file a response. Counsel's briefs evidence a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in these appeals, we determine the appeals to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Ringo in each cause number is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Ringo a copy of our decision, notify Ringo of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Ringo v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jun 27, 2013
No. 10-12-00384-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)
Case details for

Ringo v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN JAMES RINGO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jun 27, 2013

Citations

No. 10-12-00384-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)