Byron Lenoir Times v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Byron Lenoir Times

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-01-00125-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated robbery. Appellant entered pleas of true to both enhancement paragraphs.  A plea bargain agreement was not reached.  The trial court found that a deadly weapon was used or exhibited and assessed his punishment at confinement for 40 years.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in which she examines the pretrial proceedings, the written admonishments, the admonishments in open court, the evidence presented, appellant=s judicial confession, the voluntariness of appellant=s pleas, and the performance of trial counsel.  Appellate counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. Appellant testified that he Aneeded money for drugs@ so he robbed the victim in the Lexington Hotel. Appellant also testified that he had a problem with marihuana and cocaine, that he used 20 grams a day, that he wanted help with his drug problem, that he had two prior convictions, and that he was asking the trial court to defer the adjudication of his guilt. The evidence is both legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction.    Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).  The record reflects that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance.  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). The record does not reflect that counsel=s representation was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel=s errors, appellant would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial.  Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Cr.App.1997). We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

May 23, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.