Background
David Moses Rodriguez pleaded guilty on May 9, 2025, to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, each a second-degree felony. The 214th District Court of Nueces County sentenced him on July 14, 2025, to ten years’ confinement on each count, with the sentences running concurrently.
Rodriguez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that a diligent review of the entire record revealed no arguable ground for reversal. Counsel also moved to withdraw and informed Rodriguez of his rights to review the record, file a pro se response, and seek discretionary review. Rodriguez did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals concluded that counsel’s brief satisfied Anders requirements because it provided a thorough, professional evaluation of the record, procedural history, and governing law and explained why the appeal presented no reversible error.
After independently examining the record and counsel’s brief, the court found no arguable reversible error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to send Rodriguez the opinion and judgment and advise him of his right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving a compliant Anders brief must independently review the entire record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The court found no arguable reversible error arising from Rodriguez’s guilty pleas or concurrent ten-year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- Although appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw, counsel remained obligated to notify Rodriguez promptly of the decision and his right to seek discretionary review.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal lacks any nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s assessment does not end the appeal: the court must conduct its own examination of the proceedings before affirming the judgment and permitting withdrawal.
The decision also underscores the notice protections afforded to an appellant after an Anders disposition, including notice of the right to pursue discretionary review either pro se or through retained counsel.