Kristopher Reddell v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-23-00206-CR
________________

KRISTOPHER REDDELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25896
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Kristopher Reddell pleaded

guilty to assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01. The trial court found the

evidence sufficient to find Reddell guilty of the offense of assault, imposed a fine of

$500, sentenced Reddell to five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, but then suspended the sentence and placed Reddell

on community supervision for five years.

1
The State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. Reddell pleaded

“true” to violating the terms of the community supervision order. After conducting

an evidentiary hearing on the allegations that Reddell continued to use and test

positive for narcotics after he was placed on community supervision, the trial court

found all the allegations to be “true,” found the evidence was sufficient to establish

that Reddell violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked Reddell’s

community supervision, and assessed punishment at five years of confinement.

Reddell’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On February 9, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Reddell

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Reddell.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues

support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

2
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on May 22, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 5, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1
Reddell may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3