Chandler Keith Rodgers v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 03-25-00443-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00443-CR

Chandler Keith Rodgers, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY NO. 57837, THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chandler Keith Rodgers was charged with the felony offense of possessing with

intent to deliver more than 400 grams of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code

§ 481.112(f). He pleaded guilty to the charged offense and requested that a jury assess his

punishment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07, § 2. Following the punishment hearing, the

jury sentenced him to seventy years’ imprisonment, and the trial court rendered its judgment of

conviction consistent with the jury’s verdict. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(f). He

appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

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

supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Rodgers’s court-appointed attorney’s brief

meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; 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”). Rodgers’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion

and brief to Rodgers; advised Rodgers 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 Rodgers with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the

mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014). Rodgers filed a pro se brief after his counsel filed the Anders brief.

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

brief filed by counsel and his 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. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

__________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Affirmed

Filed: May 5, 2026

Do Not Publish