Opinion
No. 10-16-00269-CR
09-27-2017
RAYMOND WEBER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the County Court at Law Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-0773
ORDER
Raymond Weber has filed a document which appears to contain three motions. The title of the motions are "Motion for Sufficiency of Evidence Review," "Motion for Legal Sufficiency Challenge," and "Motion to Grant new Trial based on Insufficiency of Evidence."
Weber was convicted of theft and placed on community supervision. His appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in support of his motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967). Weber filed a pro se response. We performed a review of the entire record as required by Anders and its progeny. Id. As part of our review, we necessarily reviewed whether the State had proved each element of Weber's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After our review of the entire record and having made the determination that it presented no issue of arguable merit upon which relief could be granted, we affirmed the trial court's judgment of guilt and punishment and granted appointed counsel's motion to withdraw. See Weber v. State, No. 10-16-00269-CR, 2017 Tex. App. Lexis ___ (Tex. App.—Waco July 19, 2017, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication).
Weber, then filed a pro se motion for rehearing which was denied on September 20, 2017. We note that his various arguments in the motions he has now filed are very similar to the arguments he made in his motion for rehearing. We also note that the table of legal authorities for his motions includes every authority, but less than all of the authorities, cited in the motion for rehearing; half of which are actually civil cases that discuss civil standards for sufficiency reviews that are simply not applicable to this criminal appeal.
Each of Weber's motions deal in some way with the sufficiency of the evidence. By the Court having conducted our own review of the appellate record, we necessarily reviewed it for the sufficiency of the evidence to support Weber's conviction and found it was sufficient.
Accordingly, each of Weber's three motions identified herein, are denied.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Motions denied
Order issued and filed September 27, 2017