Opinion issued July 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00401-CR

———————————

ELMER RAY ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 969154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Elmer Ray Robinson, was convicted of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon, was found to have previously been convicted of two felony 

offenses, and was sentenced to 75 years in prison. We affirmed the trial court’s 

judgment in an unpublished opinion. See Robinson v. State, No. 01-04-00717-CR, 
2

2008 WL 2340384 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2008, no pet.) (not 

designated for publication). Appellant then filed a post-conviction motion for 

forensic DNA testing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1) (West 

Supp. 2012). The trial court denied the motion. See id. art. 64.03(a) (West Supp. 

2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. See id. art. 64.05 (West 2006).

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of 

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 

Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no 

pet.).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable 

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 
3

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not 

counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is 

wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); 

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable 

grounds exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding 

that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary 

review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Kelly Ann Smith must immediately send the notice required 

by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the 

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997).