Kristopher Dequenston Ryder v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-08-00251-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS KRISTOPHER DEQUENSTON RYDER, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Kristopher DeQuenston Ryder appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief asserting compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss Appellant s appeal. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery. The grand jury further alleged that Appellant used a deadly weapon in the robbery. Appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed an application to proceed to final disposition alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentence. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, found Appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for nineteen years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 09 ( After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal. ). Counsel has a duty, within five days of the date of this opinion, to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX . R. APP . P.. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days following the date of this opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX . R. APP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along 2 with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX . R. APP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX . R. APP . P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered June 30, 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 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.
