NO. 12-07-00170-CR
NO. 12-07-00171-CR
NO. 12-07-00172-CR
NO. 12-07-00173-CR
NO. 12-07-00174-CR
NO. 12-07-00175-CR
NO. 12-07-00176-CR
NO. 12-07-00177-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
EDWIN ALEXANDER PORTILLO, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Edwin Alexander Portillo appeals three convictions for aggravated robbery and five convictions for burglary of a habitation. He entered open pleas of guilty in each case. The trial court found him guilty in each case and sentenced him to life imprisonment for each aggravated robbery case and twenty years of imprisonment for each burglary of a habitation case. All sentences are to run concurrently. The trial court found that a deadly weapon was used in the aggravated robberies. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate records and is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated in any of the eight cases. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in these cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues concerning the severity of the sentences, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the validity of guilty pleas entered on the advice of trial counsel who he asserts was ineffective. We have reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted.
The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
Opinion delivered January 16, 2008.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)