Williams, Lagaryian C. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 17, 2002
• Docket: 14-01-01119-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 17, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-01-01116-CR,

          14-01-01117-CR,

              14-01-01118-CR, &

         14-01-01119-CR

LAGARYIAN C. WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 848,538; 769,236; 852,406; & 850,576

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

On December 31, 1997, in cause number 14-01-01117-CR, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery without a plea agreement with the State.  That same day, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for seven years.  In July and August of 2000, appellant was indicted for the offenses of robbery (cause number 14-01-1116-CR) and two counts of aggravated robbery (cause numbers 14-01-01119-CR and 14-01-01118-CR).  In September 2000, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging the three new felonies as the basis for the motion. Appellant ultimately pled guilty to the new offenses and true to the allegations in the State=s motion to revoke.  On May 4, 2001, the trial court found appellant guilty in all four cases and sentenced him to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal in each cause number.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).