Roderick Tyrone Rhodes v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODERICK TYRONE RHODES, § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Roderick Tyrone Rhodes appeals his conviction for harassment of a public servant.
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.
Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with harassment of a public servant, enhanced by
two previous felony convictions. 1 He pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury
trial. At trial, the evidence showed that Appellant was arrested for violating a criminal trespass
warning at his parents’ house and transported to the Anderson County Jail. On the way to jail,
Appellant spat on the arresting officer numerous times from the back seat of the patrol car.

1
A third-degree felony punishable, with the enhancements, by imprisonment for a term of life, or not more
than ninety-nine years or less than twenty-five years. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.11(a)(3), (b) (West 2019);
12.42(d) (West 2019).
Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty,” and the trial court assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for twenty-five years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record, found no reversible points of
error to support an appeal, and determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. In compliance with
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief
contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. 2
We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible
error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.

2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has
expired, and no pro se brief was filed.

2
P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered August 29, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 29, 2024

NO. 12-24-00062-CR

RODERICK TYRONE RHODES,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 3CR-21-35541)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the
same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the court
below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.