Timothy Antwon Bobo v. the State of Texas
This text of Timothy Antwon Bobo v. the State of Texas (Timothy Antwon Bobo v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 9, 2021
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-01021-CR
TIMOTHY ANTWON BOBO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-20-0262
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Schenck Timothy Antwon Bobo appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this
memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 2020, appellant entered a Walgreen’s drug store at
approximately 2:00 a.m., jumped over the pharmacy counter, and, while brandishing
a gun, demanded that the pharmacist give him all of the hydrocodone, Xanax,
promethazine with codeine and oxycodone. Surveillance video and citizen tips led
the investigators to identify appellant as the perpetrator and he was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and
judicially confessed to having committed the offense. Appellant elected to have the
trial court judge assess punishment.
The State called the pharmacist, the investigating officers and an expert on
gang affiliation to testify at the plea hearing. The pharmacist testified that since the
offense she has been in therapy and takes medication for anxiety. The officers
testified that appellant admitted to having committed the robbery and that he had
been to prison in Tennessee for selling illegal drugs. The gang affiliation expert
testified that appellant’s tattoos indicate that he is a member of the Vice Lords gang.
Appellant called his mother and himself to testify. Appellant’s mother testified that
appellant has had a drug problem for many years. Appellant testified that he has an
opioid addiction and that he was drug sick the night he committed the robbery and
needed money to feed his habit. While appellant had, on several occasions, tried to
kick his drug habit, he had not been able to do so. Appellant was 37 years old at the
time of his plea hearing. After both sides rested and closed, and after hearing closing
arguments, the trial court assessed punishment at forty years’ confinement. The trial
court certified appellant’s right to appeal and appellant timely filed his notice of
appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw
stating that she diligently reviewed the entire appellate record and that, in her
–2– opinion, there are no meritorious issues on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it
presents a professional evaluation showing why there are no non-frivolous grounds
for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under
controlling authority, an appeal from the judgment and sentence is without merit and
frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error and, in her opinion, there are
no grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel specifically noted,
from her review of the following, that she found no issues presented for review: (1)
the sufficiency of the indictment,1 (2) the voluntariness of appellant’s plea of guilty,2
(3) pretrial rulings,3 (3) trial rulings,4 (4) rulings on post-trial motions,5 (5) jury
1 The indictment contained all elements of the offense and conferred jurisdiction on the trial court. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 2 The record shows the trial court admonished appellant before he entered his plea, and that appellant was competent and understood his rights and freely and voluntarily waived them. 3 There were no pretrial rulings adverse to appellant. 4 The trial court overruled appellant’s counsel’s objection to State’s Exhibit No. 16 depicting a substance and a test that confirmed the substance was heroin on the basis of hearsay. The trial court admitted the exhibit because it was a true and accurate photo depiction of the item. The admittance of this exhibit did not have an adverse effect on appellant because he was not on trial for possession of heroin. Trial counsel made two objections to narrative and the trial court sustained those. The trial court sustained counsel’s objection to a question attempting to solicit an opinion on proper punishment for a gang member. 5 No post-trial motions were filed.
–3– selection and instructions,6 (6) sufficiency of the evidence,7 and (7) punishment
assessed.8 In addition, counsel reviewed the performance of trial counsel and
concluded the record does not reflect appellant received ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant, and by letter dated May 13,
2021, we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response by June 1, 2021. 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 advised
appellant that failure to file a pro se response by that date would result in the case
being submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a response.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Having reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, we
find nothing that would arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in
Anders cases). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In accordance with Anders, counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from the
6 No jury was selected in this case so there were no jury instructions. 7 Appellant executed written sworn judicial confession in which he stated that he committed each element of the offence as alleged in the indictment. 8 Aggravated robbery is a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(b). A first-degree felony is punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than five years. Id. § 12.32(a). The trial court imposed a forty-year sentence. –4– case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing
the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”). We grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered
to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of
his right to pursue a petition for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David J. Schenck/ DAVID J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Timothy Antwon Bobo v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-antwon-bobo-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2021.