AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00310-CR
No. 05-18-00530-CR
No. 05-18-00531-CR
No. 05-18-00532-CR
No. 05-18-00533-CR
No. 05-18-00534-CR
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-71200-L, F17-40081-L, F17-71199-L, F17-75838-L,
F17-75876-L, F17-75942-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Appellant Blake Anthony Ervin waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to five aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon offenses and one unlawful possession of a firearm (UPFF) offense.
Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment on each
aggravated robbery case. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the
trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years’ imprisonment for each aggravated robbery
conviction and five years’ imprisonment for the UPFF conviction.
On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly
frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). The briefs present 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, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel
delivered a copy of the briefs to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by
counsel).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the
appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeals.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
180310F.U05
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00310-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-71200-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00530-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-40081-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00531-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-71199-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00532-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-75838-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–6–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00533-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-75876-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–7–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00534-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-75942-L.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Pedersen, III
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–8–