Shandell Jerald Williams v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 17, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00194-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-11-00193-CR NO. 14-11-00194-CR NO. 14-11-00195-CR ____________

SHANDELL JERALD WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 10CR1543, 10CR1970, & 10CR2237

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered pleas of guilty to robbery in cause number 10CR2237, and two charges of aggravated robbery in cause numbers 10CR1543 and 10CR1970, without agreements on punishment. Appellant also pled true to the enhancement paragraph in the indictments. On January 31, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree that these appeals are wholly 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 or a pro se response 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).