Daroyce Eugene Rodgers v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 5th District Court of Cass County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00175-CR
______________________________
DAROYCE EUGENE RODGERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-F-00057
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daroyce Eugene Rodgers appeals from his jury convictions of possession of a controlled substance (two counts). See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115 (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced Rodgers to eighteen years' confinement on the first count and ten years' confinement on the second count, with the sentences to run concurrently. Rodgers was represented by appointed counsel at trial and by different appointed counsel on appeal. Rodgers' appellate attorney has filed a brief in which she concludes that, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

The appeal in this case concerns the convictions of Rodgers for possession of a controlled substance. Rodgers was indicted on three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of engaging in organized criminal activity; he was tried on two of the possession counts. Rodgers pled not guilty to the charges, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced by the trial court.

On November 1, 2004, police executed a search warrant on a residence located at 602 Price Street in Atlanta, Texas. The warrant authorized the officers to look for illegal drugs and was executed by officers entering the home without seeking consent from the occupants. Rodgers was in the house, but fled when the officers executed the search warrant. He was not detained at that time. On completion of the search, officers had located and seized 9.40 grams of cocaine and baggies containing .17, .11, .13, and .07 grams of cocaine; they also found a baggie containing capsules with a brown powder inside containing 2.39 grams of heroin. The State alleged the residence in question was occupied by Rodgers. Officers testified there was a photograph of Rodgers and his brother on one of the walls of the home, mail addressed to Rodgers at that address, and clothing that appeared to be Rodgers' clothing at the address. Police officer T. J. Hawley testified that he had visited the residence on a prior occasion due to issues involving animals, that Rodgers had been there, and that Rodgers claimed ownership of some of the animals at the residence. Further, Harry Hines, who was one of the people in the house at the time the search warrant was executed, testified he had visited Rodgers at the home on prior occasions.

Appellate counsel summarizes the trial in her brief and states that she has studied the record and finds no error preserved for appeal that could be successfully argued. The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record and advances two arguable grounds for review. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Rodgers on February 5, 2007, informing Rodgers of his right to examine the entire appellate record and to file a pro se response. Counsel simultaneously filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. This Court notified Rodgers that any pro se response was due on or before March 7, 2007. Rodgers has not filed a response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have reviewed the possible issues raised by counsel in her appellate brief, and we agree with her assessment that no reversible error exists. Our review of the record has not revealed other error. (1)

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: April 11, 2007

Date Decided: April 12. 2007

 

Do Not Publish

 

1. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Rodgers in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Rodgers wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Rodgers must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.