Court Opinion

ID: 9406841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 12:07:19.826395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.727450
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00053-CR

                                      Santiago RODRIGUEZ Jr.,
                                               Appellant

                                                  v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                    From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 18-0863-CR-C
                             Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           Appellant Santiago Rodriguez Jr. was charged with one count of driving while intoxicated,

3rd or more, a felony. The charge was tried to a jury, which found him guilty. The trial court

assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional

Division for a period of fifty years. Rodriguez appeals his conviction.

           Having reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Rodriguez’s pro se brief, the State’s response to

the pro se brief, and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
                                                                                      04-22-00053-CR

                  COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF

       Rodriguez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel

also filed a motion to withdraw. The brief recites the relevant facts with citations to the record.

       Counsel reviewed the appellate record and concluded that “there are no arguable issues on

appeal concerning the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motions to suppress, the jury’s guilty

verdict, or the length of sentence.” See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1997, no pet.).

       We conclude appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Rodriguez with

a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Rodriguez of his right to

review the record and file a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v.

State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel advised

Rodriguez of his right to request a copy of the record and provided Rodriguez with a motion to

request a copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

                          APPELLANT’S PRO SE BRIEF, STATE’S RESPONSE

       Rodriguez requested a copy of the appellate record, which this court provided to him, and

he filed a pro se brief. Rodriguez’s pro se brief raises three issues: (1) the trial court committed

reversible error by removing the prior DWI convictions stipulation from the jury charge, (2) the

omitted stipulation deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and (3) the trial court

committed reversible error by excluding some testimony from his expert witness.

       The State’s brief rebutted each of Rodriguez’s putative issues.

                                                -2-
                                                                                       04-22-00053-CR

                                           CONCLUSION

       Having reviewed the record, the Anders brief, Rodriguez’s pro se brief, and the State’s

brief, we conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous

and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

                                        FURTHER REVIEW

       No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Rodriguez wish to seek further review of

this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must file a petition for discretionary review either

through a retained attorney or by representing himself. Any petition for discretionary review must

be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for

rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal

Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Do not publish

                                                 -3-