Rodney Carnes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 8 of Travis County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-0299-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D JANUARY 3, 2013 ______________________________ RODNEY BRYANT CARNES, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY; NO. C-1-CR-12-205007; HONORABLE CARLOS BARRERA, JUDGE _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel s motion and affirm. In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1987); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App. San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, she concludes the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court s judgment. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has also shown that she sent a copy of the brief to Appellant and informed Appellant that, in counsel s view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that she notified Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. The Clerk of this Court also advised Appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel s brief. Appellant did not file a response. The State elected not to file a brief. We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. After reviewing the record and counsel s brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. 2 Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish. 2 In granting counsel s motion to withdraw, however, we remind counsel of the educational duty to inform Appellant of this Court s decision and of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in the Criminal Court of Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). 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.
