Rodney Willard Iglesias v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 15, 2013
Docket02-12-00483-CR
StatusPublished

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

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00483-CR

RODNEY WILLARD IGLESIAS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Rodney Willard Iglesias entered open pleas of guilty to six

counts of possession of child pornography. After accepting his guilty pleas, the

trial court sentenced Iglesias to six years’ confinement for each count and

ordered that the sentences run concurrently.

Iglesias’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This

court afforded Iglesias the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, and

he has done so.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the

record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is

frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only

then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Iglesias’s pro

se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an

appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 15, 2013

2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

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)
Mays v. State
904 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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