i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No . 0 4- 09 -0 00 37 -C R Melvin RI CH AR

DSO N , Appellant
v. The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 144th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-4368 Honora ble Catherine Torre s-Stahl, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 14, 2009 AFF I RMED
After enter ing a

plea of nolo contender e on Apr i l 4 , 2 0 07, the trial cour t found Appellant Melvin Richardson guilty of the off ense of abandonme nt of a child with intent to r eturn. The trial court su b s e q u ently sentenc ed Richar dson to two y ear s confineme nt in a State J ail Fa cility , suspended
and pr ob a te d f

or a te rm of tw o y e ars . O n Jan

ua ry 8, 20 09 , a ft e r e nte ri nga

ple a of tr ue to f ive c ounts04
- 09
- 00 03 7- CR

- 2- on the State’s motion to revoke pr obation , t h e t rial cour t revoke d Richardson’s pr obation and sentenc ed Richar dson to two y ear s in the State J ail Fa cility . Richardson a ppeals the tria l court’s sentenc e on his revoc ation. Richardson’s c ourt-appointed attorney filed a br ief c ontaining a profe ssional evaluation of the re co rd i n acc ordanc e with An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel conc ludes the
a pp e a l ha s no me ri t. C ouns e l pr ov ide d Ri c ha rd so n w itha

c op y of the br ie f a

nd inf or me d h im o f h is rig ht to revie w t he re cord a nd file his own brief

. Se e Nic ho ls v . S

tate , 9 5 4 S. W. 2 d

8 3 , 8 5
- 8 6 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 97 , n o p e t.) ; Br uns v. State , 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Richar dson fi l ed a pr o se brief on J une 3, 2009 asse rting counsel wa s ineffe ctive in advising him to enter a ple a of no contest, and the trial court e rre d in failing to list en to Richardson’s a

rg uments and failing to admonish Richardson that his probation could be revoke d based on his plea

of true. After revie wing the re cord a

nd counsel’s br ief, we ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (notingcourt of appe als should not address mer its of issues raised in An de rs br ie f o r p ro se re sp on se bu t sh ou ld
on ly de te rm ine if the a

pp e a l is fr ivo lou s) ; se e als o Th om ps on v . S tate , 9 S. W. 3 d

8 0 8 , 8 1 3
- 1 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1999) (notin g rec ord on direc t appea l ge nera lly is not sufficiently

develope d to defe at pr e sumpt ion

that c ouns e l r e nd e re d e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e bu t a lso no tin g c la im c an b e ra ise d by a po stconvic t i o n application for writ of habe as cor

pus). The judg ment of the trial c ourt is, theref ore, aff irmed. Fur thermore , we g rant a

ppellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nic ho ls , 954 S.W .2d at 86; Bruns , 9 24 S.W. 2d

a t 17 7 n .1 . N o s ub sti tut e c ouns e l w ill be a pp oin te d. Sho uld Ric ha

rd so n w ish04
- 09
- 00 03 7- CR

- 3- to seek fur

ther re view of this ca se by the Texas Court of Criminal Appe als, he must e ither re tain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w or file a pro se petition for discr etionary revie w. Any pe tit ion fo r dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be f

ile d w iththi s c ourt

wi thi n th ir

ty da y s f ro m th e date of either this opini on or the last timely motion fo r re hear ing that was over ruled by this court, and should comply

with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2, 68.4. There afte r, t he petiti on for discr etionary revie w will be forw arde d by this court to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3; 68.7.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh