Court Opinion

ID: 9956879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 08:13:40.179043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:57.517028
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00194-CR

      RODREKUS KENTRELL CEASAR, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 6th District Court
                Lamar County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 29217

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Rodrekus Kentrell Ceasar pled guilty to possessing less than one gram of eutylone, a

penalty group 2 controlled substance.           See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§ 481.103(a)(4)(B) (Supp.). As a result, the trial court found Ceasar guilty of this state jail

felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.116(b). Pursuant to a plea-bargain

agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced Ceasar to twenty-four months’ confinement in

state jail but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Ceasar on community supervision for

three years. When the State filed its first revocation motion, the trial court modified the terms

and conditions of Ceasar’s community supervision to require him to perform community service

“on the last Saturday of each month” and “to provide not less than 10 submitted applications”

every two weeks “until he [became] gainfully employed.”          The State’s second revocation

motion, at issue here, alleged that Ceasar violated those modified terms and conditions.

       At the revocation hearing, Ceasar pled true to the allegations in the State’s motion to

revoke his community supervision. Accordingly, the trial court found the allegations true and

sentenced Ceasar to twenty-four months’ confinement in state jail. Ceasar appeals.

       Ceasar’s attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely

arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the

case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since

counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

                                                2
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

       On January 18, 2024, counsel mailed to Ceasar copies of the brief, the appellate record,

and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Ceasar of his rights to review the record and file

a pro se response. By letter dated January 17, this Court informed Ceasar that any pro se

response was due on or before February 16. On February 26, this Court further informed Ceasar

that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on March 18. Ceasar filed neither a pro se

response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

       We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.         We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. See id.

                                                3
         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

                                                       Scott E. Stevens
                                                       Chief Justice

Date Submitted:            March 18, 2024
Date Decided:              April 1, 2024

Do Not Publish

1
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           4