Rodaesia Hines v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 23, 2023
• Docket: 11-22-00133-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed February 23, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00133-CR ___________

RODAESIA HINES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22482-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Rodaesia Hines, Appellant, waived her right to a jury and entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(3) (West 2019). The trial court admonished Appellant, accepted her plea and judicial confession, and recessed the proceedings so that a presentence investigation report could be prepared. The proceedings resumed at a later date, and the trial court heard evidence on punishment—in addition to the presentence investigation report. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the offense of murder and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for a term of fifty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $10,000. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s Anders response. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) 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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following

2 the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

February 23, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.