Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 9, 2009
Docket03-09-00025-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. v. State (Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. 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
Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



NO. 03-09-00025-CR
Jessie Joe Rodriguez, Jr., Appellant


v.



The State of Texas, Appellee



FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RUNNELS COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 5484, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


On October 13, 2005, appellant Jessie Joe Rodriguez, Jr., pleaded guilty to forgery and was placed on a three-year term of deferred adjudication supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2008). On October 1, 2008, a hearing was held on the State's motion to adjudicate, and appellant pleaded true to two of the four violations alleged in the motion. After hearing evidence, the district court revoked supervision, adjudged appellant guilty, and assessed a punishment of 540 days in state jail and a $500 fine.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding 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); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.



__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: July 9, 2009

Do Not Publish

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)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
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)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessie-joe-rodriguez-jr-v-state-texapp-2009.