Court Opinion

ID: 9375162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 07:09:56.601172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.230563
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed February 23, 2023

                                        In The

         Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                      ___________

                                  No. 11-22-00133-CR
                                      ___________

                       RODAESIA HINES, Appellant
                                          V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 104th District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 22482-B

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Rodaesia Hines, Appellant, waived her right to a jury and entered an open plea
of guilty to the offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(3) (West
2019).   The trial court admonished Appellant, accepted her plea and judicial
confession, and recessed the proceedings so that a presentence investigation report
could be prepared. The proceedings resumed at a later date, and the trial court heard
evidence on punishment—in addition to the presentence investigation report. At the
end of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the offense of murder
and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for a term of fifty-five years
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine
of $10,000. We affirm.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy
of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a copy of the
clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and a pro se motion for access to the
appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right to review the record and
file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to file
a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied
with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
      Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed
Appellant’s Anders response. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a
court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue
an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or
(2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so
that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following

                                          2
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                                 PER CURIAM

February 23, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                    3