Richard Warren Paige, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-07-0190-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B AUGUST 13, 2008 ______________________________ RICHARD WARREN PAIGE JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 53,570-D; HON. DAVID GLEASON, PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. After a jury trial, appellant Richard Warren Paige, Jr. was convicted of the offense of murder. Punishment was assessed by the jury at forty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). concluded that appellant s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to appeal pro se. This court gave appellant until July 28, 2008, to file his own brief or response if he wished to do so. Appellant s pro se response was filed on that date. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal that being ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel has explained why the argument lacked merit. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record and appellant s pro se response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal any arguably reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion. 2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.
