In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00119-CR 

EMERY DOMINIQUE EMMITT 

A/K/A EMERY DOMINIAUE EMMITT, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court 

Tarrant County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 1314734D, Honorable Ruben Gonzalez, Jr., Presiding 

 

October 6, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant, Emery Dominique Emmitt a/k/a Emery Dominiaue Emmitt, appeals 

from his conviction of aggravated robbery following his open plea of guilty to the trial 

court and the resulting sentence of 16 years of imprisonment. Appellant's attorney has 

filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.

Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 
2

Agreeing with appointed counsel's conclusion the record fails to show any arguably 

meritorious issue, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery.

1

In November 2014, he plead 

guilty to the charge and plead “true” to the deadly weapon notice alleging he used or 

exhibited a firearm in connection with the offense. No plea agreement was entered.

The trial court held a punishment hearing after a presentence investigation report was 

provided. In addition to the report, the State presented photographs of the victim and 

the crime scene, and a surveillance recording. Appellant’s grandmother and girlfriend 

testified on his behalf. The surveillance video showed appellant walked into a 

convenience store, selected some items and walked to the counter, spoke with the store 

owner, then jumped over the counter and attacked the owner. Evidence also showed 

appellant beat the owner with a pistol, causing significant injury to the owner’s head. It 

also showed that he threatened to shoot and kill the owner, and fired three shots inside 

the store. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court assessed punishment as noted. 

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in 

support pursuant to Anders in which he certifies that he has diligently reviewed the 

record and, in his professional opinion, under the controlling authorities and the record, 

there are no grounds on which a non-frivolous appeal can be predicated. The brief 

thoroughly discusses the indictment; the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

appellant's plea; appellant’s mental state; arguments, motions and objections presented 

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2014). Appellant was also charged with aggravated 

assault. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2014). When appellant agreed to plead guilty to the 

charge of aggravated robbery, the State waived the aggravated assault charge. 
3

at the hearing; and the punishment assessed. Counsel has certified that a copy of the 

Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been served on appellant, and that counsel 

has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. 

Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref'd); see Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). By letter, we also notified 

appellant of his opportunity to submit a response. Appellant did so.

In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we 

will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. 

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If we

determine the appeal has arguable merit, we will remand it to the trial court for 

appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App.1991).

Our review convinces us appellate counsel conducted a complete review of the 

record. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record, counsel’s 

brief, and appellant’s response, to determine whether there are arguable grounds which 

might support the appeal. We agree it presents no arguably meritorious grounds for 

review. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw2and affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish. 

 

2 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.