Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State
Opinion
V.
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Do Not Publish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
Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State (Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.