Renee Rodriguez v. State ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-12-00385-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RENEE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 36th District Court
of San Patricio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela
Appellant, Renee Rodriguez, pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West Supp. 2011). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the
court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years.
The State filed several motions to revoke community supervision, the last being filed on
September 29, 2011, and amended on April 15, 2012, alleging two marijuana
possessions, failure to report to the supervision office from August 2011 through March
2012, failure to submit to urinalysis, and failure to pay court costs and fines. At the
hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations contained
in the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty
and sentenced her to ten years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely perfected this appeal, and as
discussed below, her court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s
court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court,
stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a
professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In
Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel
finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and
set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this
Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance
2
on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant;
and (3) informed appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.1
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and
appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record as well as counsel’s brief, and have
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in
the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is
ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to
advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4;
see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
ROSE VELA
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
13th day of December, 2012.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4