Larry Gene Headrick v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 258th District Court of Polk County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-03-526 CR
____________________
LARRY GENE HEADRICK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 17,202
MEMORANDUM OPINION (1)

Larry Gene Headrick entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to an indictment for the third degree felony offense of intoxication assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 49.07 (Vernon 2003). The trial court convicted and sentenced Headrick to five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. The trial court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. 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 August 12, 2004, Headrick was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

As there was no plea bargain agreement, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). It appears the appellant was duly admonished. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2005). Headrick signed a judicial confession and admitted his guilt in open court. He does not contest the voluntariness of his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on January 27, 2005

Opinion Delivered

Do Not Publish

 

Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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.