Richard Brent Reed v. The State of Texas Appeal from 66th District Court of Hill County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00270-CR RICHARD BRENT REED, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 37886 MEMORANDUM OPINION Richard Reed pleaded not guilty to the offense of injury to an elderly person. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Reed on community supervision for three years. On April 23, 2015, the State filed an Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication. The State then filed an amended Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication on May 7, 2015. Reed pleaded true to four of the eight allegations in the State’s Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication. The trial court found three additional allegations to be true, convicted Reed of the offense of injury to an elderly person, and assessed punishment at 10 years confinement and a $500 fine. We affirm. Reed’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Reed of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. On November 16, 2015, this Court received a letter from Reed indicating that he does not wish to pursue his appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Reed is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Reed a copy of our decision, notify Reed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter Reed v. State Page 2 certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed December 3, 2015 Do not publish [CR25] Reed v. State Page 3
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.
