Richard Lee Coleman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-11-00281-CR ________________ RICHARD LEE COLEMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-02682 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Richard Lee Coleman1 pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Coleman guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Coleman on community supervision for two years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Coleman s unadjudicated community supervision. Coleman pleaded true to six violations of the conditions of his community supervision. In the indictment, Coleman s name is listed as Richard Lee Coleman. In the judgment, Coleman s name is listed as Richard Lee Coleman aka Richard Lee Coleman [sic] aka Josh aka Mickins[.] 1 1 The trial court found that Coleman violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Coleman guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Coleman 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 July 21, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have 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.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on October 27, 2011 Opinion Delivered November 9, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 2 Coleman may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. 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.
