Ex Parte Rodney Dale Hood

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00141-CR
__________________
EX PARTE RODNEY DALE HOOD
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 39067
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodney Dale Hood appeals from the trial court’s ruling denying his
application for habeas relief from a judgment in which he was found guilty of
committing a misdemeanor DWI. 1 The record shows that Hood’s conviction arose
from an agreement based on a plea bargain. In a petition seeking to overturn his
conviction in Trial Court Cause Number 390679, Hood asked the trial court to set
1The judgment that is the subject of Hood’s habeas petition was assigned
Cause Number 390679 by the court in which it was filed, the County Court at Law
of Liberty County, Texas.
1
aside his conviction based on a claim alleging that he did not knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily plead guilty to the DWI. Additionally, Hood argues the
attorney who represented him on the DWI failed to discharge his duty to provide
Hood with effective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude the trial court did
not err in denying Hood’s petition, we affirm.
Background
In 2012, Hood filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. In it, he asked
the trial court to set aside his 1988 conviction on the misdemeanor DWI. Hood
amended the habeas application he filed in 2012 in 2017 and alleged the State of
Texas “guaranteed (in writing) that the underlying misdemeanor DWI conviction
[sic] would never be used to elevate or enhance any subsequent crime or sentence[.]”
In July and August 2019, the trial court heard argument from the attorneys for the
parties to consider the issues raised in Hood’s application challenging the validity of
the 1988 conviction for DWI. At the conclusion of the second hearing, the trial court
advised the attorneys who were present the court would deny Hood’s petition. The
trial court also asked the attorney for the State to provide the court with an order to
carry out its ruling. The trial court signed an order denying Hood’s application in
April 2020. At that same time, the trial court provided the parties with its written
findings.
2
In the order denying Hood’s petition seeking habeas relief, the trial court
explains in detail why it found Hood’s application for relief has no merit. For
instance, in one finding, the trial court explained that Hood’s allegations claiming
the State guaranteed Hood that it would never use Hood’s 1988 conviction on the
DWI to elevate or enhance some other sentence “is not credible.”
After the trial court denied Hood’s petition, Hood appealed. In response to the
notice, the trial court appointed the same attorney who represented Hood in the trial
court in the habeas proceeding to represent him in his appeal.
On appeal, Hood’s attorney filed a brief explaining the attorney could find no
meritorious issues to argue in Hood’s appeal that would support an argument to
overturn the trial court’s ruling on Hood’s petition for habeas corpus. The brief
presents a professional evaluation of the record.2 The record also shows that Hood’s
attorney provided Hood with a copy of the brief in the appeal and informed Hood
about how he could obtain a copy of the record and file a pro se response.
Hood filed several briefs and supplemental briefs in the appeal. In them, Hood
complains about the merits of the trial court’s ruling to deny his application. He also
2SeeAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
3
complains about the adequacy of the attorney the trial court appointed to represent
him on his habeas application and in the appeal.
Analysis
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Hood’s counsel,
Hood’s briefs and supplemental briefs, and the brief filed by the State, we find
Hood’s appeal is frivolous and lacks merit. The judgment of the trial court is
affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.3 All motions Hood
filed that have not been ruled on in this Court are denied. Hood is also not entitled
to the appointment of counsel to assist Hood should he seek to appeal. That said,
should Hood desire to have this Court’s ruling reviewed, he must either retain an
attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition seeking
discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Should Hood seek
discretionary review, he must file his petition within thirty days from the later of (1)
the date of this opinion, or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing or en
banc reconsideration is overruled by this Court.4
3See Ex parte Bowen, 835 S.W.2d 276, 277 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1992, no
pet.); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no
pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
4See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Should Hood file a petition for discretionary
review, the petition he files in the Court of Criminal Appeals must comply with the
requirements in Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. 68.3, 68.4.
4
Because Hood’s appeal is frivolous, the trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on October 27, 2020
Opinion Delivered March 10, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
5