Yvonne Christina Rodriguez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 91st District Court of Eastland County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed January 20, 2017 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________ No. 11-16-00130-CR ____________ YVONNE CHRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23977 MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Yvonne Christina Rodriguez of the offense of bail jumping and failure to appear, a third-degree felony. The trial court found an enhancement allegation to be true and assessed punishment at confinement for fifteen years. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a motion to file in this court for pro se access to the appellate record. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant filed in this court a pro se request for the appellate record, and this court directed that it be furnished to her. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 2 with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM January 20, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and McCall.1 Bailey, J., not participating. 1 Terry McCall, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
