Andrea Ann Rodriguez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 07-25-00087-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00086-CR No. 07-25-00087-CR

ANDREA ANN RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 086479-E-CR & 083955-E-CR, Honorable Timothy G. Pirtle, Presiding

October 3, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Pending before this Court are motions to withdraw supported by briefs filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 In 2023, in Cause Number 083955-E-CR, Appellate

Cause Number 07-25-00087-CR, pursuant to an open plea of guilty, Appellant, Andrea

Ann Rodriguez, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). years for possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine.2 Almost a year later,

the State moved to proceed to adjudication for certain violations of community

supervision. At a hearing on the motion, the State waived some allegations, and

Appellant entered pleas of true to the remaining allegations, including committing a new

offense of manufacture and delivery of methamphetamine. The trial court found the

allegations true, adjudicated her guilty of the original offense, and sentenced her to

confinement for eighteen months in a state jail facility.

In 2025, in Cause Number 086479-E-CR, Appellate Cause Number 07-25-00086-

CR, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the new offense of manufacture and

delivery of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two

hundred.3 The trial court found her guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury for

punishment. After hearing evidence, the jury assessed punishment at confinement for

twenty years.

In support of her motions to withdraw, counsel certifies she has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and in her opinion, it reflects no potentially

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s convictions. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling

authorities, the records support that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated she has complied with the

2 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b).

3 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d).

2 requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the briefs to

Appellant, (2) notifying her of the right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so,

and (3) informing her of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.4 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to

exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s briefs, should she be so inclined. Id. at

409 n.23. Appellant filed a response complaining about her sentence and adhering to the

claim the methamphetamine in the manufacture and delivery case was not hers. The

State did not favor us with a response.

By this Anders appeal, counsel evaluates all phases of the underlying proceeding

and concludes there is no error presented which would entitle Appellant to any relief in

either case.

When we have an Anders brief by counsel and a pro se response by an appellant,

we have two choices. First, we may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and

issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Anders, 386

U.S. at 744). Or, we may determine 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.

4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgments together with notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.

3 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 (citing Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991)).

We too have independently examined the records to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support these appeals. See Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

409; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel’s

briefs, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s convictions. See

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s Judgment of Conviction in Cause Number 086479-E-CR,

Appellate Cause Number 07-25-00086-CR, and Judgment Adjudicating Guilt in Cause

Number 083955-E-CR, Appellant Cause Number 07-25-00087-CR, are affirmed and

counsel’s motions to withdraw are granted.

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Do not publish.