Rodney Willard Iglesias v. The State of TexasAppeal from 43rd District Court of Parker County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00483-CR RODNEY WILLARD IGLESIAS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Rodney Willard Iglesias entered open pleas of guilty to six counts of possession of child pornography. After accepting his guilty pleas, the trial court sentenced Iglesias to six years confinement for each count and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. Iglesias s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel s brief and motion meet 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. This court afforded Iglesias the opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, and he has done so. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (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). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and Iglesias s pro se response. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court s judgment. PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 15, 2013 2 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 2
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.
