Antonio Vodka Richardson 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. 03-09-00431-CR Antonio Vodka Richardson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 64820, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Antonio Vodka Richardson pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of marihuana in an amount over four ounces but less than five pounds. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West Supp. 2008). At the plea hearing, Richardson s judicial confession was admitted into evidence. Following a sentencing hearing, the district court assessed punishment at 21 months in state jail. Richardson s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 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, 109 S. Ct. 346 (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). Richardson received a copy of counsel s brief and 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 judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: December 2, 2009 Do Not Publish 2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.