Roderick Palms v. State

Opinion

Appeals Reinstated, Judgments Affirmed, and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00263-CR NO. 14-19-00264-CR NO. 14-19-00265-CR

RODERICK PALMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1557128, 1557129, and 1557130

MEMORANDUM OPINION

These appeals were abated on March 5, 2020. We reinstate the appeals.

Roderick Palms appeals his three convictions for aggravated robbery. Tex.

Penal Code § 29.03(a)(2). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a

2

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).