From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reddell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Jun 5, 2024
No. 09-23-00206-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2024)

Opinion

09-23-00206-CR

06-05-2024

KRISTOPHER REDDELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do Not Publish

Submitted on May 22, 2024

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25896

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAY WRIGHT, JUSTICE

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Kristopher Reddell pleaded guilty to assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Reddell guilty of the offense of assault, imposed a fine of $500, sentenced Reddell to five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but then suspended the sentence and placed Reddell on community supervision for five years.

The State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. Reddell pleaded "true" to violating the terms of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the allegations that Reddell continued to use and test positive for narcotics after he was placed on community supervision, the trial court found all the allegations to be "true," found the evidence was sufficient to establish that Reddell violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked Reddell's community supervision, and assessed punishment at five years of confinement.

Reddell's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes 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 February 9,2024, we granted an extension of time for Reddell to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Reddell.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have 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.

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

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Reddell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
Jun 5, 2024
No. 09-23-00206-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2024)
Case details for

Reddell v. State

Case Details

Full title:KRISTOPHER REDDELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: Jun 5, 2024

Citations

No. 09-23-00206-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 5, 2024)