eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-12

Richard Laredo Jr. v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00297-CR
RICHARD LAREDO JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 21st District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15,584
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Laredo Jr. was convicted by a jury of the offenses of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2016); see also
    id. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 
    2016). We
affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Laredo’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967).
Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance
with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the
duties required of appointed counsel. See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319-20 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014); In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the
proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; see
Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 509-11 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it lacks any
basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n.10 (1988). After a
review of the entire record in this appeal, as well as appellant’s pro se response, we have
determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Laredo is granted.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Laredo. v. State                                                                        Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 16, 2020
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Laredo. v. State                                Page 3