Robert Luis Robinson v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

NO. 12-20-00145-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
ROBERT LUIS ROBINSON, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Robert Luis Robinson appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child. Appellant’s
counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18
L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault of a child by intentionally and
knowingly causing the penetration of the sexual organ of L.H., a child who was younger than
seventeen years of age, by penetrating the sexual organ of the child with the sexual organ of
Appellant and conceiving a baby with the child, a second degree felony. 1
Appellant made an “open” plea of “guilty” to the offense charged in the indictment.
Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his plea, including an
agreed punishment recommendation and a stipulation of evidence in which he stipulated, and
judicially confessed, that each and every allegation in the indictment was true and correct, and
constituted the evidence in the case. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the
evidence sufficient to substantiate Appellant’s plea, and adjudged Appellant “guilty” of the
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (c)(1), (f) (West Supp. 2020).
charged offense. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to sixteen years of
imprisonment. 2 This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she
diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our
review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case.
In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 3 We have
reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See Tex. R. App. P.
43.2.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
2
An individual adjudged guilty of a second degree felony shall be punished by imprisonment for any term
of not more than twenty years or less than two years, and in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See id.§ 12.33 (West 2019).
3
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief, and the time for filing such brief
has expired. Although Appellant states that he filed a pro se brief, no pro se brief was filed with this Court and even
after Appellant discovered that this Court had not received a pro se brief, he did not file a brief or request additional
time to file a brief.
2
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 22 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish 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 he must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 22 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion, or if a
motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 22 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22.
Opinion delivered June 30, 2021.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 30, 2021
NO. 12-20-00145-CR
ROBERT LUIS ROBINSON,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1566-19)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.