Rickey Paul Robinson v. State
This text of Rickey Paul Robinson v. State (Rickey Paul Robinson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-10-00369-CR
Rickey Paul Robinson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR2005-355, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 18, 2006, appellant Rickey Paul Robinson was placed on deferred
adjudication community supervision after he pleaded guilty to burglary of a building. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The original term of supervision was 540 days, but the term was
twice extended by the trial court. On May 27, 2010, following a hearing on the State’s motion
to adjudicate, the court adjudged appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty months in
state jail.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (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). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s
brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State, 300
S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: March 24, 2011
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rickey Paul Robinson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickey-paul-robinson-v-state-texapp-2011.