Timothy Matthew Rojas v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 02-24-00152-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-24-00152-CR ___________________________

TIMOTHY MATTHEW ROJAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. DC78-CR2021-0454

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court adjudicated Timothy Matthew Rojas guilty of state-jail-felony

criminal mischief, assessed his punishment at eighteen months’ confinement, and

sentenced him accordingly. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a), (b)(4)(A). Rojas

appealed.

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

counsel and a supporting brief in which he avers that, in his professional opinion, this

appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief professionally evaluates the appellate record and

demonstrates why no arguable grounds for relief exist; the brief and withdrawal

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 (1967). See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014) (requiring appointed counsel to notify the client that the withdrawal

motion and brief have been filed; to provide the client a copy of each; and to take

steps to assist the client in understanding his pro se rights, effectuating those rights,

and securing access to the record).

Rojas did not seek access to the appellate record and did not file a pro se

response. Likewise, the State did not file a response.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must

independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on the

2 appellant’s behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 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 counsel’s brief and the appellate record. We agree

with counsel that, but for one minor error in the judgment, the appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that otherwise

arguably might support the appeal. 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).

The judgment incorrectly states that Rojas pleaded true to the allegations in the

State’s motion to adjudicate. But Rojas pleaded not true to the State’s live allegations.

Therefore, we correct the judgment to reflect that Rojas pleaded “not true” to the

allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as

modified.

/s/ Dabney Bassel

Dabney Bassel Justice

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

Delivered: November 27, 2024