Alex Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 03-22-00490-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00490-CR

Alex Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY NO. 14,840, THE HONORABLE CARSON TALMADGE CAMPBELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Rodriguez was charged with burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code

§ 30.02. Rodriguez entered into a plea-bargain agreement with the State. Consistent with

the agreement, the trial court deferred his adjudication of guilt and placed him on deferred-

adjudication community supervision for ten years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.101.

Approximately eight years later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate alleging that Rodriguez

violated the terms of his community supervision by failing to abstain from the use of alcohol

multiple times and by committing the offense of driving while intoxicated with two or more

prior convictions for that offense. See id. arts. 42A.108, .751; Tex. Penal Code § 49.09. During

a hearing on the motion to adjudicate, Rodriguez pleaded not true to the two allegations.

At the hearing, a police officer testified that he arrested Rodriguez for driving

while intoxicated. When describing the events leading up to the arrest, the officer explained that

he observed Rodriguez turning in his car but noticed that Rodriguez did not turn sharply enough and ended up in the oncoming lane of traffic. The police officer explained that he initiated a

traffic stop, smelled alcohol when he approached Rodriguez, noticed that Rodriguez’s eyes were

bloodshot, observed that Rodriguez’s speech was “slow and inconsistent,” and documented that

Rodriguez “was unsteady on his feet.” In addition, the police officer described how there was an

open box of beer in the backseat and a half-full and cold bottle of beer inside the vehicle that

matched those in the box. Further, the police officer related that Rodriguez refused to perform

field-sobriety tests and provide a breath sample, that he obtained a warrant for a sample of

Rodriguez’s blood, and that Rodriguez was later indicted for felony driving while intoxicated

after the sample was tested. Next, Rodriguez’s community-supervision officer testified that the

State alleged in its motion to adjudicate that Rodriguez consumed alcohol on the night of his

arrest and on two later occasions as reported by a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor

attached to Rodriguez following his arrest and release on bond.

After the State rested, Rodriguez elected to testify, explained that he had been

compliant with most of the conditions of his community supervision, speculated that the alcohol

results from the monitor could have been caused by paint thinner that he was using, and

discussed his efforts to help and contribute financially to his family. During his testimony,

Rodriguez admitted that he had beer in his vehicle but stated that it had been in the vehicle for

over a week and that he bought it for other people to drink. Rodriguez also admitted that he

had previously been convicted of two counts of driving while intoxicated and had been

on community supervision for evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. Following

Rodriguez’s testimony, his mother, his sister, and a friend testified regarding his character, how

he helps his family and friends, and how he contributes financially to the family household.

2 After the hearing, the trial court found both allegations to be true, revoked

Rodriguez’s deferred-adjudication community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and

sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment; however, the trial court also agreed to suspend his

sentence and place him on community supervision for ten years. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.33.

Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Rodriguez’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw

supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,

744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the

court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case

and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Rodriguez’s counsel has represented to the Court that he

provided copies of the motion and brief to Rodriguez; advised him of his right to examine the

appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of

the appeal in this Court; and provided him with a copy of the appellate record in this case. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 & n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Rodriguez has filed a

pro se brief challenging his conviction.

We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel’s

brief and Rodriguez’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

3 __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Affirmed

Filed: April 26, 2023

Do Not Publish * Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).