Richard Earl Edwards, Sr. a/k/a Richard Earl Edwards 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. 09-09-00390-CR
_________________
RICHARD EARL EDWARDS, SR. a/k/a RICHARD EARL EDWARDS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
____________________________________________________________________
_
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 08-03962
____________________________________________________________________
_
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Richard Earl Edwards, Sr. a/k/a
Richard Earl Edwards pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court
found the evidence sufficient to find Edwards guilty, but deferred further proceedings,
placed Edwards on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1000.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Edwards’s unadjudicated community
supervision. Edwards pled “true” to twelve violations of the conditions of his community
supervision. The trial court found that Edwards violated the conditions of his community
1
supervision, found Edwards guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and assessed
punishment at ninety-nine years of confinement.
Edwards’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 January 14, 2010, 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 rebrief 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.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on June 8, 2010
Opinion Delivered June 23, 2010
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. 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.
