Kelly Roddy v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00066-CR No. 02-18-00067-CR No. 02-18-00068-CR No. 02-18-00069-CR ___________________________ KELLY RODDY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1496170D, 1496171D, 1496173D, 1496175D Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Kelly Roddy appeals from her four convictions for aggravated robbery. Roddy pleaded guilty in all four trial court cause numbers without the benefit of a plea bargain. After receiving a presentence investigation report that was admitted into evidence, the trial court sentenced Roddy to concurrent sentences: one for twenty years’ confinement and the other three for fifteen years’ confinement each. We affirm. Roddy’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that these cases present no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Counsel also complied with the requirements set forth in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Roddy filed a response agreeing with counsel’s brief, and the State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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). 2 We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Roddy’s pro se response. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit—we find nothing in the appellate record that might arguably support these appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: July 18, 2019 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.
