Charlie Leon Rhodes v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00064-CR

CHARLIE LEON RHODES, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24DC-CR-001014

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A Liberty County1 jury convicted Charlie Leon Rhodes of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, a third-degree felony.2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (Supp.). After Rhodes pled true to the State’s punishment-enhancement allegation, the jury assessed punishment at twenty-seven years and six months’ confinement. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Rhodes’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as Rhodes’s counsel on appeal, stating that he fully examined the record and reviewed the relevant law, but he found no meritorious issues for appeal. Rhodes’s appellate counsel also filed a brief in support of his motion to withdraw. In the Anders3 brief, appellate counsel set out the procedural history of the case and provided a review of Rhodes’s pleas, the effectiveness of trial counsel, and the legality of the sentence imposed, with citations to the record and applicable authority. Appellate counsel concluded there was no non-frivolous argument to be raised with respect to any of these issues.

Appellate counsel sent a letter to Rhodes providing him with a copy of the brief, informing him of his rights to review the record and file a brief or response on his own behalf, informing him of his right to appeal, and explaining the meaning and effect of an Anders brief. In the letter, appellate counsel stated that he had delivered a copy of the motion to Rhodes and

1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals pursuant to a Texas Supreme Court docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). Accordingly, we apply the precedent of the Ninth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 We address Rhodes’s appeal of his conviction for unlawful possession of firearm by felon in his companion appellate cause number 06-26-00063-CR. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(e) (Supp.). 3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

3

informed him of his right to respond or object to the motion. Appellate counsel’s letter to Rhodes indicated that he sent him a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and that he was unable to find substantive appealable error. Appellate counsel’s letter also informed Rhodes of his right to review the record and provided him with a copy of the appellate record.

On June 24, 2026, we informed Rhodes that the case would be submitted on July 15. We received a pro se response from Rhodes, wherein he argues against the use of his felony convictions from 2015 and 2022 to enhance his punishment in his companion case. That argument does not impact our review in this case.

Appellate counsel’s actions comply with an appointed counsel’s responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw in accordance with Kelly v. State.4 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellate counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal and meets the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 743–44 (1967); Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20.

4 In Kelly, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals listed additional tasks appointed counsel who files an Anders brief must perform:

He must write a letter to (1) notify his client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders brief, providing him a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and (3) inform him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare his appeal frivolous.

To this list we now add that appointed counsel who files a motion to withdraw and Anders brief must also (4) take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes.

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319 (footnote omitted) (citation omitted). The court also required appellate counsel to supply the appellant with the mailing address for the court of appeals. Id. at 320.

4

After our independent review of the entire appellate record, we have determined that “there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.” See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318 n.16. In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.5

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: July 15, 2026 Date Decided: August 31, 2026

Do Not Publish

5 Since we agree that this case presents no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of Appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.