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 No s . F17
- 71200
- L , F17
- 40081
- L, F17
- 71199
- L, F17
- 75838
- L, F17
- 75876
- L, F 17
- 75942
- L 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Schenck Appellant Blake Anthony Ervin w aived 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 puni shment at forty

- five years ’ imprisonment for each aggravated robbery conviction and five years’ imprisonment for the UPFF conviction. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed brief s i n which he concludes the appeal s are wholly frivolous and without merit. Th e brief s meet the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S.– 2

–

738 (1967). The brief s 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, 81 2 (Tex. Crim.
A pp. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ) . Counsel delivered a copy of the brief s 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 brief s . See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ex plaining 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 appeal s . We affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case

.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 27 th 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 Tri al 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. F 17

- 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. Opi nion 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.