Brandon Rhodes v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 2, 2003
Docket09-02-00484-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Brandon Rhodes v. State (Brandon Rhodes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brandon Rhodes v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-02-484 CR



BRANDON RHODES, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 86438



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandon Rhodes entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to an indictment for the third degree felony offense of evading detention with the use of a vehicle and as a second offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04 (b)(2) (Vernon 2003). The trial court convicted and sentenced Rhodes to eight years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.



Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 19, 2002, Rhodes was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

As there was no plea bargain agreement, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). It appears the appellant was duly admonished. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2003). Rhodes signed a judicial confession and admitted his guilt in open court. The record does not support an arguable contest of the voluntariness of his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 26, 2003

Opinion Delivered April 2, 2003

Do Not Publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Jack v. State
871 S.W.2d 741 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brandon Rhodes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-rhodes-v-state-texapp-2003.