AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00310-CR

No. 05-18-00530-CR

No. 05-18-00531-CR

No. 05-18-00532-CR

No. 05-18-00533-CR

No. 05-18-00534-CR

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-71200-L, F17-40081-L, F17-71199-L, F17-75838-L,

F17-75876-L, F17-75942-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Appellant Blake Anthony Ervin waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to five aggravated 

robbery with a deadly weapon offenses and one unlawful possession of a firearm (UPFF) offense. 

Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment on each 

aggravated robbery case. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the 

trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years’ imprisonment for each aggravated robbery 

conviction and five years’ imprisonment for the UPFF conviction.

On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 
–2–

738 (1967). The briefs present a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the briefs to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se 

response, but he did not file a pro se response. 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 have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeals.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

180310F.U05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00310-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-71200-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00530-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-40081-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00531-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-71199-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00532-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-75838-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–7–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00533-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-75876-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.
–8–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BLAKE ANTHONY ERVIN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00534-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-75942-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March, 2019.