Rodney Carnes v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 3, 2013
Docket07-12-00299-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Rodney Carnes v. State (Rodney Carnes 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
Rodney Carnes v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

NO. 07-12-0299-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JANUARY 3, 2013

______________________________

RODNEY BRYANT CARNES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

NO. C-1-CR-12-205007; HONORABLE CARLOS BARRERA, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel's motion and affirm. In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1987); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App. -- San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, she concludes the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has also shown that she sent a copy of the brief to Appellant and informed Appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that she notified Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. The Clerk of this Court also advised Appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel's brief. Appellant did not file a response. The State elected not to file a brief. We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice 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)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Monroe v. State
671 S.W.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodney Carnes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-carnes-v-state-texapp-2013.