Santiago Rodriguez Jr. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00053-CR
Santiago RODRIGUEZ Jr.,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-0863-CR-C
Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Appellant Santiago Rodriguez Jr. was charged with one count of driving while intoxicated,
3rd or more, a felony. The charge was tried to a jury, which found him guilty. The trial court
assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional
Division for a period of fifty years. Rodriguez appeals his conviction.
Having reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Rodriguez’s pro se brief, the State’s response to
the pro se brief, and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
04-22-00053-CR
COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF
Rodriguez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel
also filed a motion to withdraw. The brief recites the relevant facts with citations to the record.
Counsel reviewed the appellate record and concluded that “there are no arguable issues on
appeal concerning the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motions to suppress, the jury’s guilty
verdict, or the length of sentence.” See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.).
We conclude appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Rodriguez with
a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Rodriguez of his right to
review the record and file a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v.
State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel advised
Rodriguez of his right to request a copy of the record and provided Rodriguez with a motion to
request a copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
APPELLANT’S PRO SE BRIEF, STATE’S RESPONSE
Rodriguez requested a copy of the appellate record, which this court provided to him, and
he filed a pro se brief. Rodriguez’s pro se brief raises three issues: (1) the trial court committed
reversible error by removing the prior DWI convictions stipulation from the jury charge, (2) the
omitted stipulation deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) the trial court
committed reversible error by excluding some testimony from his expert witness.
The State’s brief rebutted each of Rodriguez’s putative issues.
-2-
04-22-00053-CR
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record, the Anders brief, Rodriguez’s pro se brief, and the State’s
brief, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous
and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.
See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
FURTHER REVIEW
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Rodriguez wish to seek further review of
this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must file a petition for discretionary review either
through a retained attorney or by representing himself. Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for
rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Do not publish
-3-