Max Alexander Rodeman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00180-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-25-00177-CR NO. 09-25-00178-CR NO. 09-25-00179-CR NO. 09-25-00180-CR NO. 09-25-00181-CR ________________

MAX ALEXANDER RODEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 23-08-11864, 23-08-11862, 23-08-11865, 23-08-11867, 23-08-11868 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Max Alexander Rodeman on five counts for second-

degree felony possession with intent to promote child pornography. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 43.26(g). Rodeman pleaded “guilty” to each count and was represented

by counsel. After hearing evidence on punishment, the trial court assessed a

1 punishment of fifteen years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division, on each count and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Rodeman timely filed a notice of appeal.

Rodeman’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that

presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Rodeman to file a

pro se brief, and Rodeman did not file a pro se brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, the appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and

finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal

exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed

to brief the issues.” Id. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we

need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response.

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

2 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record, counsel’s brief, and have found no reversible error and nothing that would

arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature

of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in

the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of

appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

the appeal. Cf. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on April 29, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.