In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00288-CR 

 

MARKUS ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court 

Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B20667-1803, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding 

March 8, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Markus Anthony Rodriguez, pleaded guilty to intoxicated assault with a 

motor vehicle causing serious bodily injury, a third-degree felony.1 The trial court 

suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him on community supervision for a term of 

six years. Appellant was also assessed a fine and court costs. In May of 2023, the State 

filed a motion to adjudicate the guilt of Appellant, alleging that Appellant had violated 

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.07(a), (c). 
2

several conditions of his community supervision, including that Appellant had committed 

additional criminal offenses, failed to report his arrest, failed to report to his community 

supervision officer as required, and failed to pay his fine, costs, and fees. At a hearing 

on the State’s motion, Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a plea of true to the 

State’s allegations. After hearing testimony, the trial court found that Appellant had 

violated terms of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Appellant’s 

community supervision and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant was assessed a fine and 

court costs. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a 

motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted 

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no 

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the 

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, 

counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, 

Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed 

counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). 

By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to 

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 
3

counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a 

brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error 

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently 

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were 

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of 

the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate 

review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.