In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00063-CR
____________________
JONATHON JERMAINE RICHMOND, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-06845
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jonathon Jermaine Richmond was indicted for the felony offense
of abandoning a child, enhanced by three prior felony convictions. Under a plea
bargain agreement, Richmond pleaded guilty. 1 The trial court found the evidence
sufficient to substantiate Richmond’s guilt, deferred further proceedings, and
1
Richmond was also indicted for aggravated kidnapping, enhanced by three
prior felony convictions. As part of the plea agreement on the abandonment
offense, the State chose not to pursue the kidnapping charge.
1
placed Richmond on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1000
fine. The State later filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation, and
Richmond pleaded “true” to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his
community supervision. Finding four of the alleged violations true, the trial court
granted the motion to revoke and sentenced Richmond to sixty-five years in prison.
The trial court subsequently vacated the judgment and the sentence and reinstated
Richmond’s community supervision. Several months later, the State filed a Third
Amended Motion to Revoke. At the hearing on the Third Amended Motion to
Revoke, Richmond pleaded “true” to alleged violations of his community
supervision. The trial court revoked Richmond’s community supervision and
sentenced him to twenty years in prison.
Richmond’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes Richmond’s appeal is
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for
Richmond to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Richmond. We
have determined that Richmond’s appeal is wholly frivolous. We have
independently examined the clerk’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues
support the appeal. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to
2
re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on October 1, 2014
Opinion Delivered October 8, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2
Richmond may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3