Rodney C. Jones v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 140th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0120-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 10, 2008 ______________________________ RODNEY C. JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2005-411,112; HON. ROYAL HART, PRESIDING _______________________________ Anders Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. After a jury trial, Rodney C. Jones was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at eight years confinement in the penitentiary. His appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there is no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated August 15, 2008, we also informed appellant of his right to file a response by September 10, 2008. Upon appellant s request for an extension of time, that deadline was moved to October 10, 2008. To date, appellant has filed neither a response nor another motion for additional time. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal. They include 1) the trial court s exclusion of certain impeachment evidence, 2) the State s reference during closing argument to appellant s pre-arrest silence, and 3) the State s reference to an extraneous offense during closing argument at the punishment phase. However, counsel has also discussed the applicable law and explained why each ground is without merit. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and found no arguable issue warranting reversal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
