Guadalupe Richardson v. State, 13-14-00723-CR

Guadalupe Richardson pleaded guilty (June 4, 2010) to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on five years’ community supervision with conditions including no new offenses and completion of TAIP, anger management, and batterers’ intervention.
The State filed a motion to revoke supervision (Oct. 22, 2014), alleging Richardson committed DUI and assault and battery of a family member in Virginia (Aug. 28, 2014) and failed to complete ordered programs and panels.
Richardson pleaded true to the allegations; the trial court revoked community supervision and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, stating no non-frivolous issues for appeal but highlighting two potential matters for consideration: (1) the 2010 admonishments did not identify the original charge/date; and (2) the court failed to admonish Richardson that he could proceed pro se.
The court notified Richardson of counsel’s Anders filing and his rights to seek pro se access and to file a pro se response; Richardson did not file a pro se response or request record access.
The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and instructed counsel to notify Richardson of the opinion and his right to seek discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of the 2010 admonishments (failure to identify original charge/offense date)	Counsel suggested the admonishments might be deficient because they lacked specific identification of the original charge and dates.	The State and court treated the admonishments as adequate under controlling authority; no reversible error shown.	Court found no reversible error; admonishments did not warrant reversal.
Trial court’s failure to admonish right to proceed pro se	Counsel raised that the court did not admonish Richardson that he could proceed pro se at plea.	Court and State relied on record and controlling precedent showing no reversible defect.	Court found no reversible error; no relief granted.
Adequacy of Anders brief and entitlement to appointed successor counsel	Appellate counsel argued the appeal was frivolous and sought permission to withdraw under Anders.	State had no objection; if arguable issues existed, new counsel should be appointed.	Court performed independent review, found the appeal wholly frivolous, affirmed judgment, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw (no substitute counsel appointed).

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate court must independently review proceedings upon Anders filing)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas standards for Anders briefs and pro se response guidance)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedural requirements when counsel files an Anders brief)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (options for appellate court after Anders brief)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (addressing appellate review when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural precedents for handling Anders-type submissions)
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (procedures for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (discussing content requirements for Anders briefs)
Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (notification requirements following counsel’s withdrawal)