Alfred Rodriguez, Jr. v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                     JUDGMENT
    Court of gpeate
    jfirsft ©fetrtct of ffizxa*
    NO. 01-14-00394-CR
    ALFRED RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9 of Harris County
    (Tr. Ct.No. 1931465).
    The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the
    court below on April 9, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the
    opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore
    CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be
    affirmed.
    The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
    Judgment rendered June 25, 2015.
    Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices
    Higley and Massengale.
    Opinion issued June 25, 2015
    In The
    Court of Appeals!
    For The
    $\xxt ©tetrttt of Cexasf
    NO. 01-14-00394-CR
    ALFRED RODRIGUEZ, JR., Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 9
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 1931465
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    A jury found appellant, Alfred Rodriguez, Jr., guilty of the offense of assault
    family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014).
    The trial court then found the allegations in an enhancement paragraph true and
    sentenced him to 300 days in the county jail.         See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
    §§ 12.21, 12.43 (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
    Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
    along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
    is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 87 S. Ct.
    1396(1967).
    Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
    evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
    
    authority. 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).        Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
    reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
    reversal. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S. Ct. at. 1400; Mitchell v. State, 
    193 S.W.3d 153
    , 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2006, no pet).
    We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
    conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
    for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 
    744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
    (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
    examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
    
    300 S.W.3d 763
    , 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
    whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    ,
    826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); 
    Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155
    (reviewing
    court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We
    note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
    for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals. See 
    Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827
    & n.6.
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to
    withdraw.1 Attorney Mark Kratovil must immediately send appellant the required
    notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex. R. App.
    P. 6.5(c).
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
    Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
    i
    Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
    and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
    Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 
    956 S.W.2d 25
    , 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1997).
    m •HOUSTON
    • Court of Appeals, First District                                                                                     U.S:POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES.
    *. 301 Fannin Street \
    Hbustori, Texas 77002-2066
    ZIP 77002
    02 W
    0001372104JUN 25. 2015
    /•'•I   "Tl7 /   >' He
    •RETUfcN TO                S£-WO£R
    ATTEMPTED -                  NOT KNOW-N
    USABLE TO                  FORWARD                                            it
    BC:        77002206699                     '2 93 3-          715-           !5"-3«
    J!     |III   j«l   !   rii i | i   si!   «   «   a?   «a «           M   »j
    7 7 00-2..@Z0;&S i
    7701 ;3132?