Roderick Spurlock A/K/A Rodgrick Spurlock v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00214-CR
__________

RODERICK SPURLOCK A/K/A RODGRICK SPURLOCK,
Appellant
V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 29704-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roderick Spurlock, also known as Rodgrick Spurlock, entered an
open plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a
third-degree felony, and a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019), § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). The trial
court found Appellant guilty and the enhancement allegation to be true. Prior to
sentencing, a presentence investigation report was ordered, and the parties were
permitted to present punishment evidence. The trial court assessed Appellant’s
punishment at confinement for twelve years in the Correctional Institutions Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and no fine.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his
right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to
file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.1

1
We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

July 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3