Ricardo Davon Guidry 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. 09-08-074 CR ____________________ RICARDO DAVON GUIDRY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 95536 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Ricardo Davon Guidry pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The trial court found Guidry guilty and assessed punishment at five years of confinement, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Guidry on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. On August 17, 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Guidry s community supervision. Guidry pled true to two violations of the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Guidry violated the terms of the community supervision 1 order, revoked Guidry s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of five years of confinement. Guidry 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 June 19, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the 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 re-brief 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. _______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 24, 2008 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2008 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. 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.
