eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-05

Freddie Rodriquez v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00538-CR
NO. 02-13-00539-CR
FREDDIE RODRIQUEZ                                                   APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1292777D, 1339641D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
The trial court convicted Appellant Freddie Rodriguez of failure to register
as a sex offender and bail jumping, found both habitual offender notices true, and
sentenced him to forty-five years’ confinement for each offense.
Rodriguez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a brief in support of that motion.       Counsel avers that in his
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion
meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. See
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967). This court informed Rodriguez
that he may file a pro se response to the Anders brief, and he did so. The State
did not submit a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See
Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–
83,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se
response. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and
without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeals. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);
see also Meza v. State,
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgments.
/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
2
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 28, 2015
3