Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00813-CR

Troy Dewitt SMITH,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR11681C

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018

AFFIRMED

On November 12, 2009, Appellant Troy Smith entered a plea of guilty to the offense of 

aggravated robbery; the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Smith on deferred 

adjudication probation for a period of ten years. 

On November 13, 2017, Smith entered a plea of true to three alleged violations of the 

conditions of his probation and not true to the fourth alleged violation. After a contested hearing, 

the trial court found the State proved all four alleged violations, found Smith guilty of the 
04-17-00813-CR

- 2 -

underlying aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at fifteen years’ confinement in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal ensued.

COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF

Smith’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel 

also filed a motion to withdraw. In appellate counsel’s brief, he recites the relevant facts with 

citations to the record, analyzes the record with respect to allegations and the evidence presented 

at trial, and accompanies the analysis with relevant legal authorities. Counsel concludes the appeal 

is frivolous and without merit. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

1997, no pet.). 

We conclude the brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see 

also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Smith with copies of the briefs

and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Smith of his right to review the record and file a 

pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court also advised Smith of his right to request a 

copy of the record and file a brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). No additional briefing was filed in this court. 

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the entire record and court-appointed counsel’s Anders brief, we agree 

with Smith’s court-appointed appellate counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and 

the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion 

to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
04-17-00813-CR

- 3 -

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Smith wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) 

the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this 

court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk 

of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review 

must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id.

R. 68.4.

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH