NO. 07-11-0272-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
MARCH 21, 2012
______________________________
LATRELL DEVONNE ROBINSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_______________________________
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY;
NO. 67,455; HON. MARTHA J. TRUDO, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Latrell Devonne Robinson (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated
robbery. After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at
fifty years in prison.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel
filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was
no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. Appellant filed a
response questioning the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel, the purported
interjection of supposition by the prosecutor, and the availability of an instruction on a
lesser-included offense.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed each phase of the trial, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the legitimacy of
the punishment levied. Thereafter, he concluded that no reversible error appeared of
record.
We also conducted our own review of the record and appellant’s pro se response
to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable
error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing
so, we too conclude that no arguable issue exists meriting a continuation of the appeal.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.1
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
2