Gresilda Rodriguez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 7, 2005
• Docket: 04-04-00671-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-04-00671-CR

Gresilda RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

State of TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1999-CR-4644

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:            Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed:   December 7, 2005

AFFIRMED

            On November 8, 1999, Appellant Gresilda Rodriguez entered a plea of nolo contendere to the second degree felony of delivery of a controlled substance and the court placed her on deferred adjudication for a period of six years. On August 16, 2004, Appellant pled true to violations of conditions number 4, 16D and 20 of the State’s Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision. More specifically Rodriguez pled true to the failure to obtain and keep gainful employment in a lawful occupation in violation of condition number 4, failure to provide verification of documented alcoholic anonymous meetings in violation of condition number 16D and failure to complete 320 hours of community service restitution in violation of condition number 20. The trial court granted the State’s motion to enter adjudication of guilt and found Appellant guilty of the offense and revoked her community supervision.

            Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of her right to review the record. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised her of her right to file a pro se brief. Defendant has not filed a brief.

            After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we GRANT counsel's motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

DO NOT PUBLISH