Rodrick Francis Hartfield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 1 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STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on February 9, 2010 Opinion Delivered February 24, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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 T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
