### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00398- CR
Benny Rivera Rodgers, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO NCHO CO UNTY, 119 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. DSM- 13- 0185 3, H ONO RAB LE B EN WO ODW ARD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appea l pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia
. A jury convicted appellant

1 Be nny Rivera Rodge rs of the offe nse of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in

an amount less than one g ram. Punishm ent was assessed at two y ear s’ confine ment in state jail and 2 a $5,000 fine

. The jury hear d evidenc e that on Oc t o b er 3, 2013, Deputy Br ent Fr azier of the Concho County Sheriff’s De p ar tment, along with other office rs, executed a sear ch war rant at
a residenc e located in the City of Eden. Fr az i er t es t ified that upon entry into the residenc e, they discovere d three individuals inside, later identified as Rodge rs, Kar la Poindex ter, and Calie Br own. During the sear ch of the residenc e, office rs discovere d a s y ri n ge containing a clea

r liquid that
386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(b). 2Fr azier believed to be methamphetamine. Fr azier testified that the sy ring e was located in Rodge rs’s bedroom, on a nightstand near the bed. Acc ording to F razier, office rs also found in the bedroom a letter from the S t at e of Texas addre ssed to Rodge rs, “miscellane ous pills and two small bag s of marijuana ,” a digital scale , and a small box containing a pill bottle, with the names “Ka rla & Be nny ” handwr itten inside the box

. Her man Carr o l l , a fore nsic scientist with the Texas Depa rtment of Public Safety , tested the liquid that was found inside the sy ring e. Carroll testified that the liquid was in fac t methamphetamine and that the ag g reg ate weig ht of the methamphetamine contained within the sy ring e was .65 g rams. Ba sed on this and other e vidence , the jury found Rodg ers guilty

of the offe nse of possession of a controlled substanc e. During the hear ing on punis h ment, the district court admitted into evidenc e a 2013 judgme nt of conviction ag ainst Rodge rs for the offe nse of possession of a controlled substance, ag ain methamphetamine; a 2011 order revoking p ro b at i on for the offe nse of violating a protec tiv e o rd er; and a 1997 judgme nt of conviction for the offe nse of driving while intox icated. After considering this and other evidenc e, the j u ry as s es s ed punishment as noted above, and the district court re ndere d judgme nt on the jury ’s ver dict. This appea l followed.

Rodge rs’s co u rt-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there

are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Counsel has ce rtified to the Court that she has provided 3

See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohi o , 4 8 8 U. S
. 75 (1988); High v. State , 3 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). 2copies of the motion and brief to Rodge rs, advised him of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord

and file a pro s e re s p o n se, and supplied him with a form motion for pro se acce ss to the appellate

rec ord. I n response , Rodge rs has filed a pro se brief in which he raises various complaints reg arding

4 the proce ed in g s below, including claims that counsel was ineffe ctive, that the jury was biased ag ainst him, and that the deputy

who testified in cour

t “lied” a nd was not a c redible w itness. W e h av e independe ntly revie wed the rec ord and have found nothing that might arguably support the appea l. We ag ree with counsel that the appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion 5 to withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and B ourland Affir med Filed: Aug ust 28, 2015 Do Not Publish

See Ke lly v. State , 436 S.W .3d 313, 319-20 (Te x . Crim. App. 2014). 4 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 76 3 , 7 6 6 (T ex . Crim. App. 5 2009); Bledsoe v . State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). 3