ANTHONY JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

ANTHONY JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 01-16-00270-CR

Decided: March 23, 2017

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Joseph Rodriguez pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of child without an agreed recommendation by the State regarding sentencing. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to 60 years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Rodriguez timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel advised Rodriguez of his right to access to the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Rodriguez of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The deadline for Rodriguez to file his pro se response was December 14, 2016. Appellant filed no response and requested no extension of time.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Attorney Faye Gordon must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM