Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Freddy Rodriguez, Jr. v. State

Freddy Rodriguez, Jr. v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 1, 1996·No. 03-94-00643-CR·Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-94-00643-CR



Freddy Rodriguez, Jr., Appellant



v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, 203RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. F-9450103-IHP, HONORABLE CLYDE E. WHITESIDE, JUDGE PRESIDING



PER CURIAM



The district court found appellant guilty of burglary of a vehicle. The court assessed punishment at imprisonment for two years and a $300 fine pursuant to a plea bargain agreement.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Appellant's notice of appeal does not preserve for review the district court's rulings on pretrial motions and does not state that the court gave appellant permission to appeal. As a result, we have jurisdiction in this cause only to consider jurisdictional issues. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Hutchins v. State, 887 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Fowler v. State, 874 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). Appellant's brief does not question the jurisdiction of the district court over either the subject matter of this cause or appellant personally. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In light of the frivolous appeal brief, we have examined the record and find no basis for challenging the district court's jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.



Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd

Dismissed

Filed: May 1, 1996

Do Not Publish

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

Freddy Rodriguez, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).

Freddy Rodriguez, Jr. v. State (Freddy Rodriguez, Jr. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Davis v. State
870 S.W.2d 43 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Hutchins v. State
887 S.W.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Lyon v. State
872 S.W.2d 732 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Fairfield v. State
610 S.W.2d 771 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Fowler v. State
874 S.W.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)