Paul Daniel Hardy v. State
Paul Daniel Hardy v. State
Opinion
Hardy's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 7, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to 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.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________________
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on September 28, 2007
Opinion Delivered October 10, 2007
Do Not Publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.