COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00096-CR
NO. 02-11-00097-CR
NO. 02-11-00098-CR
NO. 02-11-00099-CR
JOSHUA AUSTIN APPELLANT
RODRIGUEZ
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
Appellant Joshua Austin Rodriguez appeals his four prison sentences
imposed for engaging in organized criminal activity. We affirm.
Appellant pled guilty to five charges of engaging in organized criminal
activity and elected to have a jury decide his punishment. The jury assessed
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement on four of the charges and
recommended ten years’ probation on the fifth.2 The trial court sentenced
Appellant to twenty-five years’ confinement for the four cases on appeal, to run
concurrently.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief in support of that motion. In the
brief, counsel states, that in his professional opinion these appeals are frivolous
and without merit. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for
relief. We gave Appellant the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders
brief, but he has not filed one. The State also has not filed a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the grounds that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders,
this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.
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.). 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).
2
Appellant did not appeal the case in which he received a probated
sentence.
2
We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief. We agree
with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find
nothing in the records 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). Accordingly, we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 21, 2012
3