Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00742-CR, 05-04-00743-CR, 05-04-00744-CR
Opinion Filed January 10, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-41186-LJ, F03-41187-LJ, F03-73636-PJ. Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clifton Edward Williams appeals his convictions for two robbery offenses, each enhanced, and evading arrest using a vehicle, enhanced. Punishment was assessed at forty years' confinement for each of the robbery offenses and twenty years' confinement for the evading arrest offense. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response claiming there are arguable issues because the trial court erred in failing to hear appellant's motion to dismiss his trial counsel; appellant's guilty pleas were not voluntary; and he received ineffective assistance of counsel both at trial and on appeal. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response. We agree these appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support these appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, PD-300-04, 2005 WL 3057799 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 16, 2005). We affirm the trial court's judgments.