Adrian Concepcion Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 6, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-25-00227-CR

__________

ADRIAN CONCEPCION RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 266th District Court Erath County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25CRDC-00038

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant, Adrian Concepcion Rodriguez, of the offense of tampering with physical evidence (Count One), a third-degree felony, and the lesserincluded offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than one gram (Count Two), a state jail-felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(c), (d)(1) (West Supp. 2025); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 2025). The jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eight years in

2

the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for Count One and two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for Count Two. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of a form motion to request the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.1 Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious arguable grounds for appeal exist.2 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

Appellant filed a pro se letter on May 18, 2026, stating that he was “trying to write a pro se 1

response.” No pro se response followed.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 2

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

3

(“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”).

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

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

August 6, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.