|
|
|
|
Opinion filed December 8, 2005
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
Nos. 11-05-00134-CR, 11-05-00135-CR, and 11-05-00136-CR
__________
WALTER SMITH, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-55107-MQ, F04-55108-PQ, and F04-73297-LMQ
O P I N I O N
Walter Smith entered open pleas of guilty to the offenses of robbery,[1] evading arrest,[2] and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.[3] Appellant also entered pleas of true to the enhancement allegations. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 25 years for the robbery and aggravated robbery convictions and at confinement for 10 years for the evading arrest conviction. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the briefs and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s briefs. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet=n).
Appellant has filed responses to his counsel=s motions to withdraw. In his responses, appellant challenges the effectiveness of counsel both on appeal and at trial and the validity of his conviction in Cause No. 11-05-00136-CR and argues that he has not received the proper credit for time served in the county jail. The record before this court does not support appellant=s arguments; therefore, appellant=s contentions are overruled.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit.
The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
December 8, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]11-05-00134-CR.
[2]11-05-00135-CR
[3]11-05-00136-CR