Christopher Paul Richard v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 6, 2021
• Docket: 09-21-00013-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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Submitted on September 28, 2021 Opinion Delivered October 6, 2021 Do Not Publish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