Jessie Joe Rodriguez Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 119th District Court of Runnels County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00025-CR Jessie Joe Rodriguez, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RUNNELS COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5484, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 13, 2005, appellant Jessie Joe Rodriguez, Jr., pleaded guilty to forgery and was placed on a three-year term of deferred adjudication supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2008). On October 1, 2008, a hearing was held on the State s motion to adjudicate, and appellant pleaded true to two of the four violations alleged in the motion. After hearing evidence, the district court revoked supervision, adjudged appellant guilty, and assessed a punishment of 540 days in state jail and a $500 fine. Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop Affirmed Filed: July 9, 2009 Do Not Publish 2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.