07-07-0105-CR
07-07-0106-CR
07-07-0107-CR
07-07-0108-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 23, 2007
______________________________ALFONSO DEMETRIO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NOS. 17772-C, 17773-C, 17774-C, 17829-C, 18159-C;
HONORABLE DAVID GLEASON, JUDGE _______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER ON ABATEMENT AND REMANDAppellant Alfonso Demetrio Rodriguez filed a pro se notice of appeal from five separate judgments convicting him of abandoning a child, kidnapping, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, assault on a public servant, and criminal mischief. The clerk's record has been filed, and reflects that appellant had appointed counsel at trial. On May 11, 2007, appellant filed a letter with this court indicating he has not yet been appointed counsel to assist with his appeal.
Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the causes to the 251st District Court of Randall County for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine the following:
1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;
2. whether appellant is indigent; and
3. whether the appellant is entitled to appointed counsel.
Should it be determined appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to an appointed attorney, the trial court shall appoint counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing counsel. If necessary, the trial court shall issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. A supplemental record of the hearing, if any, shall also be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before June 22, 2007.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
l', sans-serif">MAY 19, 2009
______________________________
JOE N. DANIELS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B 17521-0801; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Joe N. Daniels, was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child, enhanced. Punishment was assessed at fifty years confinement. 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 his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, this Court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did file a response. However, the State did not favor us with a brief.
By the Anders brief, counsel contends he has found no issues to present on appeal. However, he raises a potential charge error and then concedes that egregious harm, which would be required to support reversal, is not demonstrated in the record. By his pro se response, Appellant maintains (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and (2) the child victim made multiple inconsistent statements in her testimony.
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (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.