Robert Keith Bricker, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00219-CR Robert Keith Bricker, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 53186, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In March 2002, appellant Robert Keith Bricker, Jr., pleaded guilty to burglary. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). He was convicted by the court and sentenced to ten years in prison, but imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on community supervision. In April 2003, appellant pleaded true to the allegations made in the State s motion to revoke. The court revoked supervision and imposed the ten-year sentence. Appellant s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The order revoking community supervision is affirmed. __________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear Affirmed Filed: December 11, 2003 Do Not Publish 2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.