State of Texas v. Randy James Rodriguez ( 2001 )

NO. 07-01-0129-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 17, 2001

______________________________



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT

V.

RANDY JAMES RODRIGUEZ, APPELLEE



_________________________________

FROM THE 242^ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B 13733-0005; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

The State of Texas brought an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress a written statement given by appellee Randy James Rodriguez, which was to be used as evidence in his prosecution for the offense of burglary of a habitation. However, the State has now filed a withdrawal of its notice of appeal and a motion to dismiss because Rodriguez has been convicted of aggravated sexual assault in another proceeding and sentenced to 99 years confinement for that conviction and has also agreed to plead guilty to the offense which is the subject of this appeal, with the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence for the aggravated sexual assault conviction.

Because the motion meets the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), and this court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving it, the motion is hereby granted, and the State's appeal is dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at the State's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

John T. Boyd

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>

NO. 07-10-00376-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 15, 2011

SALVADOR GONZALES, JR., APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

 FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

NO. CR-10C-029; HONORABLE ROLAND D. SAUL, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Salvador Gonzales, Jr, pleaded guilty to the first degree felony offense of injury to a child.[1]  After hearing the punishment evidence, a jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 65 years.  Appellant gave notice of appeal.  We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.[2]

                                                                                                Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.

---

[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1) (West 2011).

[2] Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.