David Pardo 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. 09-10-00457-CR ________________ DAVID PARDO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99091 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant David Pardo was indicted for aggravated assault. Pardo pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Pardo guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Pardo on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Pardo s unadjudicated community supervision. Pardo pleaded true to four of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Pardo violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Pardo guilty of 1 aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Pardo then filed this appeal. Pardo 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). Pardo filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 6, 2011 Opinion Delivered April 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 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.
