William Patrick Ridley v. The State of Texas Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Kerr County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-20-00113-CR William Patrick RIDLEY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. A19-181 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 12, 2021 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED William Patrick Ridley pled guilty to assault (family violence), a third-degree felony, as part of a plea bargain with the State. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Ridley in accordance with the agreement. The court sentenced Ridley to ten years in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for a period of two years. The State later filed a motion to revoke Ridley’s community supervision, alleging he committed multiple violations of various conditions of his community supervision. Ridley pled true to all the allegations. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, revoked Ridley’s 04-20-00113-CR community supervision, and imposed a sentence of six years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Ridley timely appealed. Ridley’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Ridley, informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014), and provided Ridley a form to request access to the appellate record. Ridley requested a copy of the of the appellate record and this court provided him a copy. In addition, the court notified Ridley of the deadline for him to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Ridley’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1 Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ridley 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 -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.
