Court Opinion

ID: 5117127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-08 07:17:06.748995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:00.690628
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-21-00013-CR
                              __________________

                CHRISTOPHER PAUL RICHARD, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 14-20372
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an open plea, appellant Christopher Paul Richard pleaded guilty to

possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §

485.115(a), (b). The trial court found Richard guilty and assessed punishment at two

years in state jail, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Richard on

community supervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the

State filed a motion to revoke Richard’s community supervision. Richard pleaded

“true” to violating one term of the community supervision order. After conducting

                                         1
an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Richard violated the terms of his

community supervision, revoked Richard’s community supervision, and imposed a

sentence of twenty months of confinement.

      Richard’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On June 25, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Richard

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Richard.

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

that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                        W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                            Chief Justice

Submitted on September 28, 2021
Opinion Delivered October 6, 2021
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

      1
        Richard may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
                                         2