Court Opinion

ID: 9889701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 08:09:34.726511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:17.223850
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00075-CR

     NORMAN CHARLES ROBERTS, III, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 71st District Court
                Harrison County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 22-0323X

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Norman Charles Roberts, III, entered an open plea of guilty to burglary of a building.

After a presentence investigation report and additional evidence were received, the trial court

sentenced Roberts to twenty months’ confinement in state jail. This appeal followed.

       Roberts’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case,

provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and

stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of

Anders v. California, counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44

(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding);

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

       Roberts’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal and provided Roberts with copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to

withdraw. Counsel also informed Roberts of his rights to review the appellate record and to file

a pro se response. On August 2, 2023, we notified Roberts that his pro se response was due on

September 1, 2023. By letter dated September 13, 2023, we notified Roberts that the case would

be submitted on briefs on October 4, 2023. Roberts did not file a pro se response.

                                                2
         We reviewed the entire appellate record and independently determined that no reversible

error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm

the judgment of the trial court.1

                                                                 Scott E. Stevens
                                                                 Justice
Date Submitted:            October 4, 2023
Date Decided:              October 5, 2023

Do Not Publish

1
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3