Mercedes M. Biggurs v. State

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2017

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00560-CR No. 05-16-00561-CR No. 05-16-00562-CR No. 05-16-00563-CR MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-57650-U, F14-70586-U, F14-70971-U, F14-75674-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellant Mercedes M. Biggurs appeals her convictions, following the adjudication of

her guilt, for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, theft of property valued at $1,500 or

more but less than $20,000, and two injury to a child offenses. The trial court assessed

punishment at two years’ confinement in state jail for the theft conviction, ten years’

imprisonment for each injury to a child conviction, and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the

aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she

concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents 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 brief to appellant. We advised

appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she 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 brief. 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 judgments.

/David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160560F.U05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00560-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F08-57650-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered December 7, 2017.

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00561-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-70586-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00562-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-70971-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MERCEDES M. BIGGURS, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-00563-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-75674-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

–6–