Chandler Keith Rodgers v. the State of Texas
Docket 03-25-00443-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 03-25-00443-CR
Appeal from a jury-assessed punishment following a guilty plea to a felony drug offense
Summary
The court reviewed Chandler Keith Rodgers’s appeal from his conviction for possession with intent to deliver more than 400 grams of methamphetamine. Rodgers pleaded guilty and asked for a jury to assess punishment; the jury sentenced him to 70 years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief asserting the appeal is frivolous; Rodgers filed a pro se brief. After an independent review of the record and briefs, the court found no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues Decided
- Whether there were any arguable grounds to support an appeal from Rodgers’s conviction or punishment.
- Whether counsel properly complied with Anders procedures in seeking withdrawal on the ground the appeal is frivolous.
Court's Reasoning
Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief, which the court found met the required standards by professionally evaluating the record and identifying no non-frivolous issues. The court independently reviewed the record and both the counsel brief and the appellant's pro se brief and found nothing that could arguably support the appeal. Because no meritorious issues were identified, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous and affirmed the judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Penson v. Ohio488 U.S. 75 (1988)
- Garner v. State300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
- Kelly v. State436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
Parties
- Appellant
- Chandler Keith Rodgers
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Evan C. Stubbs
- Judge
- Karin Crump
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-05-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petitioning for discretionary review
Rodgers can consult counsel about filing a petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if there are grounds he believes were overlooked; such petitions have strict deadlines and standards.
- 2
Request post-conviction relief if applicable
If there are constitutional or jurisdictional issues not addressed on direct appeal, Rodgers may discuss with counsel the possibility of filing a habeas application or other post-conviction remedies.
- 3
Seek counsel for collateral options
Rodgers should consult an attorney experienced in appellate and post-conviction practice to evaluate potential remedies, deadlines, and the viability of any further filings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed Rodgers’s conviction and 70-year sentence, finding no arguable issues on appeal.
- Who does this affect?
- This decision directly affects Chandler Keith Rodgers, who remains convicted and sentenced as imposed by the trial court.
- Why did the court affirm without a full briefing fight?
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating the appeal was frivolous; after providing Rodgers notice and an opportunity to file a pro se brief, the court independently reviewed the record and found no non-frivolous issues.
- Can Rodgers seek further review?
- Rodgers may pursue discretionary review by a higher court (such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals), but the opinion does not change the standard for seeking such review.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00443-CR
Chandler Keith Rodgers, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY
NO. 57837, THE HONORABLE EVAN C. STUBBS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chandler Keith Rodgers was charged with the felony offense of possessing with
intent to deliver more than 400 grams of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code
§ 481.112(f). He pleaded guilty to the charged offense and requested that a jury assess his
punishment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07, § 2. Following the punishment hearing, the
jury sentenced him to seventy years’ imprisonment, and the trial court rendered its judgment of
conviction consistent with the jury’s verdict. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.112(f). He
appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
Rodgers’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Rodgers’s court-appointed attorney’s brief
meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and
demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82
(1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both
that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . .
frivolous”). Rodgers’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion
and brief to Rodgers; advised Rodgers of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se
brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and
provided Rodgers with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the
mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Rodgers filed a pro se brief after his counsel filed the Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and considered Rodgers’s appellate
brief filed by counsel and his pro se brief, and we have found nothing that might arguably
support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________
Karin Crump, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump
Affirmed
Filed: May 5, 2026
Do Not Publish
2