Court Opinion

ID: 9396297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 18:09:23.510233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.826163
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-22-00259-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

LEANDRO FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ,                                                 Appellant,

                                               v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.

                 On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court
                        of Lavaca County, Texas.

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
             Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Leandro Fernando Rodriguez

pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, penalty group four,

in an amount of more than twenty-eight grams but less than 200 grams, a third-degree

felony, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for

a period of two years. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.118(c). On the State’s
motion, the trial court later revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him

guilty, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 12.34(a). Although appellant filed a notice of appeal, his court-appointed counsel have

filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                    I.     ANDERS BRIEF

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

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that their review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could 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, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief 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).

       In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that they: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

                                              2
motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

appellant of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those

responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous;

and (4) provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record. 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 408–09.

Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

                               II.    INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       Upon receiving an Anders brief, 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). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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 requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

                               III.   MOTION TO WITHDRAW

       In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel have asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel are ordered to send a copy of this

opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a

                                             3
petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                           IV.      CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                             GINA M. BENAVIDES
                                                                             Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
18th day of May, 2023.

         1 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.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
                                                       4