Opinion issued November 21, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00596-CR

____________

JOSEPH LESTER ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1278417

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Joseph Robinson, pleaded guilty to the burglary of a habitation 

and pleaded “true” to two felony enhancements. The trial court found appellant 
2

guilty, found the enhancements true, and assessed punishment at 35 years’ 

confinement. 

Robinson’s appointed counsel on appeal has submitted a brief stating his 

professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable 

grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 

1400 (1967). 

In his pro se response to the Anders brief, Robinson contends that: (1) the 

trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress; and (2) his trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to object to certain exhibits admitted at trial and in failing to 

adequately cross-examine the State’s witnesses. A review of the record reveals no 

arguable ground for appeal. We therefore affirm.

Background

On August 31, 2010, witness Johnny O’Bryant observed a car pull up in front of the 

apartment of Trishaul Lewis. It was approximately 10:00a.m. and it was a sunny

day. A man later identified as Joseph Robinson got out of the passenger side of the 

car, walked up to the apartment, and kicked the front door open. O’Bryant watched 

Robinson for approximately five minutes. 

Witness Jason O’Connor, a maintenance worker, learned of the break-in and 

leaned halfway out of the back door of the leasing office to observe the back porch 
3

of Lewis’s apartment. O’Connor testified to seeing “a [b]lack male wearing a white 

muscle shirt and black shorts. His hands were stretched out over the guardrail and 

he was looking exactly in [O’Connor’s] direction.” O’Connor also described the 

man as “kind of stocky, bigger than [him]” and had a few tattoos on his neck and 

arms. O’Connor briefly saw the hands and face of another African American male, 

but both individuals went back into the apartment. 

Deputy Marquez was dispatched to the scene for an “in progress” event. 

When he arrived, Deputy Marquez noticed that the front door of Lewis’s apartment 

was broken off its frame. After determining that no suspects were in the area, he 

began inspecting for missing property. Deputy Marquez saw several items lined up 

at the front door of the apartment, including a television and a set of wheels and 

tires. He dusted them for fingerprints.

Lewis testified that she lived at the apartment in question and no one other 

than her had a right to possess it. She did not give any consent for Robinson to be 

in her apartment. Lewis testified that she knew Robinson and that he had been to 

the apartment once before for a barbeque. Lewis told Deputy Marquez that the 

items missing were two laptop computers, some clothing, and a lot of shoes. She 

later testified in court that a television, a generator, some jewelry, tools, and some 

baby things were missing. 
4

Four days later, Deputy Marquez presented photographic lineups to O’Bryant 

and O’Connor. O’Bryant described the man he saw as “short, light skinned, stocky 

buil[d]” and identified Robinson in a matter of seconds. O’Bryant testified that he 

had seen Robinson on the property three or four times before. O’Bryant offered 

inconsistent testimony as to Deputy Marquez’s instructions, but Deputy Marquez 

testified that he did not instruct either witness that the suspect may or may not be in 

the lineup. O’Bryant again identified Robinson in the courtroom at trial. 

O’Connor also identified Robinson in the photographic lineup. He said that 

he recognized Robinson “instantly,” and that he “knew for a fact. . . one hundred 

percent.” He also identified Robinson in court. 

Deputy Maurice Carpenter, a crime scene investigator for the Harris County 

Sherriff’s Office, testified about the fingerprints that Deputy Marquez recovered 

from the items lined up in Lewis’s apartment. He examined two right thumb 

fingerprints that were lifted from a thirty-two inch television and compared them to 

inked prints of Robinson, confirming a match. 

Robinson produced an alibi witness, Shantea Cornelius, who testified that 

Robinson was at her house the morning of the incident. 
5

Anders Procedure

The brief submitted by Robinson’s court-appointed counsel states his 

professional opinion that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and 

that any appeal would, therefore, lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. 

at 1400. Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds 

for reversal on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Robinson, requested permission to 

withdraw from the case, and notified Robinson of his right to review the record and 

to file a pro se response.

When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed 

attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine 

that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and 

not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether case is 

“wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the 

defendant files to her appointed counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
6

Our role in this Anders appeal, which includes reviewing Robinson’s pro se 

response, is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. See 

id. at 827. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the 

appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the court-appointed attorney 

to withdraw. See id. The trial court then either appoints another attorney to present 

all arguable grounds for appeal or, if the defendant wishes, allows the defendant to 

proceed pro se. See id. We do not rule on the ultimate merits of the issues raised 

by Robinson in his pro se response. See id. If we determine that there are arguable 

grounds for appeal, Robinson is entitled to have new counsel address the merits of 

the issues raised. See id. “Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel 

may [we] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id.

If, on the other hand, we determine, from our independent review of the 

entire record, that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s 

judgment. See id. at 826–28. Robinson may challenge the holding that there are no 

arguable grounds for appeal in a petition for discretionary review filed in the Court 

of Criminal Appeals. See id. at 827 & n.6.

In accordance with Anders and Bledsoe, we have reviewed the record, 

Robinson’s appointed counsel’s Anders brief, and Robinson’s pro se response to 

that brief. We conclude that no arguable ground for reversible error exists. Having 
7

reached that conclusion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant 

Robinson’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.1

Conclusion

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

motion to withdraw.

Jane Bland

Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.

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

 

1 Appointed appellate counsel still has a duty to inform Robinson of the result of this 

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

Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex 

parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 

770, 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).