Rodrick Deshion Steele Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 02-21-00143-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00143-CR No. 02-21-00144-CR ___________________________

RODRICK DESHION STEELE JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1523899D, 1523904D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Rodrick Deshion Steele, Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgments for

two convictions of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.02(a)(2). Steele was originally placed on deferred-adjudication community

supervision for both offenses. The State filed petitions to adjudicate him guilty, and

Steele pleaded “not true” to the allegations in the State’s petitions. Following a

hearing, the trial court adjudicated Steele guilty and assessed his punishment at 12

years in prison for each offense, to be served concurrently.

Upon reviewing the records and concluding that no arguable grounds for

appeal exist, Steele’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the

requirements of Anders; counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the entire

record in each case demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Id.,

87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have independently examined the records, as is our duty upon

the filing of an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.);

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Steele filed a pro

se response, but his response did not show any arguable grounds for appeal. The

State agreed with appointed appellate counsel’s assessment that no meritorious

grounds for appeal exist and declined to file a brief.

2 After carefully reviewing the records and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel

that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of

the records reveals nothing further that might arguably support the appeals. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State,

206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 27, 2023