Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State

DecidedFebruary 24, 2010

Docket09-09-00089-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State (Rodrick Francis Hartfield 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.

Bluebook

Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-09-00089-CR

RODRICK FRANCIS HARTFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-03945

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Rodrick Francis Hartfield pled guilty to burglary of a building. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hartfield guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Hartfield on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hartfield's unadjudicated community supervision. Hartfield pled "true" to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hartfield violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hartfield guilty of burglary of a building, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Hartfield's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 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 1, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We 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.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on February 9, 2010

Opinion Delivered February 24, 2010

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-09-00089-CR

RODRICK FRANCIS HARTFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-03945

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Rodrick Francis Hartfield pled guilty to burglary of a building. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hartfield guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Hartfield on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hartfield's unadjudicated community supervision. Hartfield pled "true" to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hartfield violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hartfield guilty of burglary of a building, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Hartfield's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 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 1, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We 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.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on February 9, 2010

Opinion Delivered February 24, 2010

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrick-francis-hartfield-v-state-texapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack