Court Opinion

ID: 3078279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:28.608395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:53.738081
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             _________________
                              NO. 09-12-00341-CR
                             _________________

                  DESMOND JAMAD RICHARD, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 260th District Court
                           Orange County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. D-110642-R
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Desmond Jamad Richard, pleaded guilty to burglary of a

habitation. Richard was sentenced by the trial court to confinement in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice for sixteen years. The trial court assessed a fine in

the amount of $1,000. This appeal followed.

      Richard’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

                                         1
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 4, 2012, we granted an

extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from

Richard.

      We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                               ___________________________
                                                   CHARLES KREGER
                                                        Justice
Submitted on February 6, 2013
Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013
Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

      1
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2