Court Opinion

ID: 2863722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-05 23:52:14.641768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:02.313789
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00167-CR

Patrick John Richardson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 44,901, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Patrick John Richardson was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after pleading guilty to sexual assault of a child.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011
(West Supp. 2001).  The State later filed a motion to adjudicate.  After a hearing, at which
Richardson pleaded true to most of the alleged violations, the court revoked supervision, adjudged
Richardson guilty, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment.
Richardson's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Richardson, who was advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________
				Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   August 30, 2001
Do Not Publish