eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2012-06

Joshua Austin Rodriguez v. State ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 02-11-096--099-CR


    COURT OF APPEALS

    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    FORT WORTH

     

     

     

    NO. 02-11-00096-CR

    NO. 02-11-00097-CR

    NO. 02-11-00098-CR

    NO. 02-11-00099-CR

    JOSHUA AUSTIN RODRIGUEZ

     

    APPELLANT

                                                                                                                                

    V.

    THE STATE OF TEXAS

     

    STATE

    ------------

    FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

    ------------

    MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

    ------------

              Appellant Joshua Austin Rodriguez appeals his four prison sentences imposed for engaging in organized criminal activity.  We affirm.

              Appellant pled guilty to five charges of engaging in organized criminal activity and elected to have a jury decide his punishment.  The jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement on four of the charges and recommended ten years’ probation on the fifth.[2] The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years’ confinement for the four cases on appeal, to run concurrently.

              Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion.  In the brief, counsel states, that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous and without merit.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  We gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, but he has not filed one.  The State also has not filed a brief.

              Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the grounds that an 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 records and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the records 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.

     

     

                                                                                 PER CURIAM

     

    PANEL:  GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

    DO NOT PUBLISH

    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

     

    DELIVERED:  June 21, 2012


    [1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

    [2]Appellant did not appeal the case in which he received a probated sentence.