Opinion issued July 9, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00401-CR
———————————
ELMER RAY ROBINSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 969154
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Elmer Ray Robinson, was convicted of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, was found to have previously been convicted of two felony
offenses, and was sentenced to 75 years in prison. We affirmed the trial court’s
judgment in an unpublished opinion. See Robinson v. State, No. 01-04-00717-CR,
2008 WL 2340384 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008, no pet.) (not
designated for publication). Appellant then filed a post-conviction motion for
forensic DNA testing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1) (West
Supp. 2012). The trial court denied the motion. See id. art. 64.03(a) (West Supp.
2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. See id. art. 64.05 (West 2006).
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and
therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of
error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400;
Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386
2
U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not
counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is
wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same);
Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable
grounds exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding
that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary
review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Kelly Ann Smith must immediately send the notice required
by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the
Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3