Taajon Jabri Richardson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00269-CR TAAJON JABRI RICHARDSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1503236R ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Taajon Jabri Richardson appeals his conviction and 15-year sentence for murder. We affirm. Richardson’s appointed appellate counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a supporting brief under Anders v. California, representing that “[t]he record in this case reveals no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal.” 386 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion satisfy Anders by professionally evaluating the record and showing why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Richardson filed a pro se response to his counsel’s brief, and the State filed a letter brief agreeing with that counsel’s appellate assessment. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney moves to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we allow counsel to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the State’s letter brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Wilson v. State, No. 02-17-00194-CR, 2018 WL 3580883, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 26, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Davis v. State, No. 02-17-00109-CR, 2018 WL 1751627, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr ELIZABETH KERR JUSTICE PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 31, 2018 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.
