Darion Richardson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 13th District Court of Navarro County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-07-00217-CR

DARION RICHARDSON,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

 

 

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court # 30944

MEMORANDUM Opinion

A jury convicted Appellant Darion Richardson of burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to one year in a state jail. Notice of appeal was timely, and the trial judge certified his right to appeal.

When Richardson s brief was not timely filed, we abated this appeal for a hearing in the trial court for a determination of why no brief had been filed. On that occasion, the trial court found that Richardson wanted to continue the appeal and admonished counsel to file the brief at the earliest possible date. No brief was forthcoming, and we abated the appeal for a second time. After a hearing at which Richardson failed to appear, the trial judge found that Richardson was not communicating with his counsel and that counsel had abandoned the appeal because of non-cooperation.

Richardson has not filed his brief. He has chosen not to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him. See Wilson v. State, 39 S.W.3d 390, 391 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.) (per curiam). We and the trial court have made every effort to protect Richardson s rights, and further abatement of this cause would be futile. See Carroll v. State, 75 S.W.3d 633, 634 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.). We have submitted the appeal without briefs and have reviewed the record for fundamental error. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4); Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 687-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994 ); Carroll, 75 S.W.3d at 634.

Our review of the record discloses no unassigned fundamental error. See Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment.

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 6, 2008

Do not publish

[CR25]

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.