## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00480 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 1 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 2 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 3 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 4 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 5 - CR NO. 02 - 10 - 0048 6 - CR

MARCUS WAYNE RHODES APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STAT E

---------- FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- According to testimony from many witnesses at trial, over the course of several years leading up to 2009, appellant Marcus Wayne Rhodes committed

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

agg ravated sexual assault against five women and attempted to sexually assault two other women. Each woman had a criminal history, including convictions for prostitution. In April 2009, Grand Prairie police officers arrested appellant at his job. After his arrest and after the Grand Prairie officers gave him Miranda 2 warnings , those officers and two Fort Worth officers recorded a n interview with him

. The Fort Worth officers arrived for the interview in time to watch appellant receive the Miranda warnings f rom an adjoining room through closed

- circuit television . T he Fort Worth officers later entered the interview room to talk to appellant while the Grand Prairie officers watched that part of the interview from the adjoining room

. Appellant never said that he wanted to end the interview or talk to a lawyer. Grand juries indicted a ppellant with six counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of attempted sexual assault, among other charges. 3 Appellant’s indictments contained habitual offender notice s alleging that he had been previously convicted of two other felony offenses. The trial court appointed counsel for appellant and granted his motion for the appointment of an investigator. Appellant filed motions to suppress the recorded oral statemen t t hat

2 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 478

– 79, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1630 (1966).

3 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01(a), 22.011(a) (West 2011) , § 22.021(a)(1)(A)(i)

– (ii), (2)(A) (ii)

– (iii) (West Supp. 2012 ).3

he had made to the police

. T he trial court viewed the record ing and held a hearing on appellant’s motion s but denied the m

. Appellant agreed to participate in one trial t o resolve all of his charges. He pled not guilty to each offense . H is predomina nt defensive theor ies at trial w ere that the victims of his crime s were not credible and had consented to the sexual encounters that they had with him as part of prostitution agreements . A fter a jury heard extensive evidence and arguments from the parties , it convicted appellant of six counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of attempted sexual assault

. Appellant chose the trial court to assess his punishment in each case

. He pled true to the indictments’ h abitual offender notices , and his wif e testified in the punishment phase

. T he trial court sentenced appellant to life sentence s for five of the aggravated sexual assault convictions, life sentence s for each of the attempted sexual assault convictions, and a sentence of fifty years’ confineme nt for the remaining aggravated sexual assault conviction. The court ordered each sentence to run concurrently with the others. App ellant brought these appeals. Appellant’ s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that in his professional opinion, there are “no errors warranting reversal that can be legitimately supported by the record

. ” Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. Cal ifornia by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for4

relief. 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (analyzing the e ffect of Anders ). We gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response to his counsel’s brief, but he has not done so

. The State has not filed 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 , we are obligated to independently examine the record and to determine whether there are arguable grounds for appeal. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. St ate , 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 and counsel ’ s brief. We agre e with counsel that the appeal is frivolous; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 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 with draw and affirm the trial court’ s judgment s

.

PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b ) DELIVERED: November 1, 2012