### 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. 03-10-00338- CR

Hect or Rodriguez, A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 147 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 09- 2064 18, H ONO RAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Hec tor Rodrigu e z w a s c o n v ic ted of indece ncy with a child by exposure and
sentenc ed to six y ear s’ imprisonment. At trial, the pare nts of Y.G., who was six y ear s old at the time of t he offense, testified that while t hey wer e ri d i n g t h e bus with Y.G. and her y oung er sist er, they noticed that appellant had his pants unzipped. Appellant, who was sitti ng next to Y.G. and her mother, was looking at Y.G. while he m asturbate d, and Y.G.’s mother testified that Y.G. kept turning awa

y and cover ing her fac e. Y.G.’s fathe r g ot up and spoke to the bus driver, who stopped the bus, approa ched appellant, summoned the police by radio, and remove d appellant from the bus.
At punishment, the State prese nted evidenc e of four other instances in which appellant had exposed himself in public. Appellant did not testify at trial. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief meets th e r e q u irements of

Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord and demons t ra t i n g t h at there are noarg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders , 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and adv i s ed h i m t h at he had the rig ht to examine the rec ord and file a pro se bri ef

. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled.
We have considere d the rec ord and counsel’s brief and agre e that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. I n our revie w of the evidenc e prese nted to the jury and the proce dures that wer e observe d, we find nothing in the rec ord that might arg uably support the appea l. We g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw a nd aff irm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 25, 2011 Do Not Publish

Substi tute counsel will not be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further revie w of 1 his case by the court of criminal appea ls, he must either re t ai n an at t o rney to file a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se pe tition for discretionary revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P

. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls). Any p et i t i o n fo r discretionar

y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overr

ules the l as t timely motion for rehe aring filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the co u rt of criminal appea ls along with the rest of the filings in the cause . See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2