NUMBER 13-17-00635-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

JOSE JAIME RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 92nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant Jose Jaime Rodriguez was convicted of the offense of stalking, a thirddegree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.072. Following a jury trial, Rodriguez 

was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–

Institutional Division and assessed a $2,000 fine.
2

Testimony presented at trial showed that Benito Garza Jr., the complaining 

witness, and Rodriguez were neighbors. Rodriguez initially came to Garza, a member 

of the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo (PSJA) school board, in 2014 with a complaint that his son 

was being hazed by the school football program. Garza testified that he reported the 

complaint to the PSJA superintendent, and the school district conducted an investigation. 

Rodriguez’s allegation was unsubstantiated by the investigation, so Garza then explained 

the next step, a grievance procedure, to Rodriguez. However, Rodriguez was not 

satisfied by the outcome of the grievance process and continued to send text messages, 

make repeated phone calls, and come to Garza’s home without invitation. This behavior 

continued for years, and in 2016, Garza called the Pharr Police Department to file a report 

against Rodriguez. In his report, Garza stated that Rodriguez came to his home and 

was knocking on his door and windows, yelling at him to come outside. At one point 

during the incident, Rodriguez told Garza he was a “dead man walking.” 

Garza went to the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office, who assisted him in 

applying for a permanent protective order against Rodriguez. An assistant district 

attorney explained the protective order procedure during trial. She stated that Garza 

was granted a temporary protective order (TPO), while they waited to have a final hearing 

to obtain a permanent protective order. Rodriguez continued to violate the TPO while 

awaiting the final hearing. In 2017, during the final hearing in the 430th District Court, 

Rodriguez and Garza agreed to a 26-year protective order. However, after the protective 

order was granted, Rodriguez continued to harass Garza by placing derogatory signs 

about Garza in Rodriguez’s front yard.
3

Following a jury’s verdict of guilty, during deliberation on punishment, Rodriguez 

moved for a mistrial. Rodriguez argued that although the jury was given instructions 

regarding his eligibility for probation, after further review, it was determined Rodriguez 

had a prior felony conviction and was, therefore, not eligible for probation. The State 

had submitted his prior judgment into evidence during the punishment phase of the trial. 

The trial court denied his request for mistrial and explained that the instructions regarding 

probation had been given to the jury, and the jury was not told that probation was not 

available for them to consider. The jury found that Rodriguez had a previous conviction 

and returned a verdict of imprisonment.

The trial court held a hearing on Rodriguez’s motion for new trial, in which he 

argued that there was juror misconduct and that his trial counsel had been ineffective 

based on determining Rodriguez was ineligible for probation during punishment. The 

trial court denied his motion. Rodriguez was granted the right to appeal. Rodriguez’s 

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Rodriguez’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

has 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. See id. 

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 
4

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-Edinburg 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991) (en banc). 

In compliance with High v. State and Kelly v. State, Rodriguez’s counsel carefully 

discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s 

judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); 

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Rodriguez’s appellate 

counsel also notified this Court that he: (1) notified Rodriguez that he has filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Rodriguez with copies of both pleadings; (3) 

informed Rodriguez of his rights to file a pro se response,1review the record preparatory 

to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is 

frivolous; (4) provided Rodriguez with a copy of the appellate record; and (5) informed 

Rodriguez that the pro se response, if any, should identify for the Court those issues 

which he believes the Court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any 

meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Rodriguez has filed a pro se response.2

 

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 to 

case presents any meritorious issues.” See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 

2

 The State filed a “First Amended Motion to Strike Pro Se Brief of the Appellant” following 

Rodriguez’s pro se response being filed. Due to the holding in this opinion, we deny the State’s motion as

moot. 
5

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief and pro se response, 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). A court of appeals has two options when an 

Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire 

record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds 

for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate 

counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court 

finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel 

has briefed those issues on appeal. Id. 

We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez’s pro se 

response, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 

827–28 (“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. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Rodriguez’s attorney has 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 Jeffrey 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 
6

must 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 this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send 

a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Rodriguez and advise him of his right 

to file a petition for discretionary review.3 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).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed the

11th day of July, 2019.

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see id

R. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id.

R. 68.4.