Roderick Tyrone Rhodes v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 12-24-00062-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-24-00062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODERICK TYRONE RHODES, § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD APPELLANT

V. § JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Roderick Tyrone Rhodes appeals his conviction for harassment of a public servant. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with harassment of a public servant, enhanced by two previous felony convictions. 1 He pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the evidence showed that Appellant was arrested for violating a criminal trespass warning at his parents’ house and transported to the Anderson County Jail. On the way to jail, Appellant spat on the arresting officer numerous times from the back seat of the patrol car.

1 A third-degree felony punishable, with the enhancements, by imprisonment for a term of life, or not more than ninety-nine years or less than twenty-five years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.11(a)(3), (b) (West 2019); 12.42(d) (West 2019). Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty,” and the trial court assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record, found no reversible points of error to support an appeal, and determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2 We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

CONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.

2 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief was filed.

2 P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered August 29, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 29, 2024

RODERICK TYRONE RHODES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 3CR-21-35541)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.