Edgar Ronald Barton v. The State of Texas Appeal from 31st District Court of Gray County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-17-00074-CR EDGAR RONALD BARTON, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 31st District Court Gray County, Texas Trial Court No. 10,049, Honorable Steven R. Emmert, Presiding September 1, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Edgar Ronald Barton, appellant, appeals his conviction for Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact, a second degree felony. Pursuant to a plea of guilty, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication probation for a period of six years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication of appellant’s guilt. After a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court found appellant had violated a term of his probation, found him guilty of the charged offense and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. Appellant appealed and was appointed counsel. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders1 brief in the cause. Through those documents, he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. Appellant filed a response wherein he questioned the 1) voluntariness of his plea due to coercion by the trial court, the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel, 2) ineffective assistance of defense counsel, and 3) sufficiency of the evidence to support the adjudication of his guilt. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which areas included 1) the original guilty plea, 2) ineffective assistance of counsel and 3) the severity of the punishment. However, counsel then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record and appellant’s response to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No such error was uncovered. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
