From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodke v. State

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Jun 28, 2017
No. 08-16-00320-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 28, 2017)

Opinion

No. 08-16-00320-CR

06-28-2017

RACHEL HANH RODKE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.


Appeal from the County Criminal Court No.4 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20150C06433) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Rachel Hanh Rodke, was charged by information of resisting a search. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.03(a)(West 2016). She was subsequently convicted. Appellant timely filed her pro se notice of appeal. We will affirm.

Appellant chose to represent herself at trial and on appeal. The trial court thoroughly admonished Appellant of the pitfalls and disadvantages of self-representation. See U.S. Const. VI and XIV Amendments; TEX.CONST. art. I, § 10, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 687-88 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). The trial court appointed stand-by counsel to assist Appellant, an indigent, if needed, throughout all pretrial and trial proceedings. Appellant has not filed a brief in this appeal. We therefore submitted the case without the benefit of briefs and, in the interest of justice, reviewed the entire record. Having found no unassigned fundamental error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. June 28, 2017

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) provides that in the event a brief is not timely filed on appellant's behalf, the appellate court shall order the trial court to determine "whether the appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether the appellant is indigent, or, if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal [.]" However, where the trial court "has found that the appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal . . . the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require." TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(b)(4). See also Lott, 874 S.W.2d at 688 n.2 (noting that where an appellant chooses to appear pro se and has been warned of the dangers of pro se representation on appeal, there is no need to remand for a Rule 74(l)(2)(now Rule 38.8(b) hearing).

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ (Do Not Publish)


Summaries of

Rodke v. State

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Jun 28, 2017
No. 08-16-00320-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Rodke v. State

Case Details

Full title:RACHEL HANH RODKE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Date published: Jun 28, 2017

Citations

No. 08-16-00320-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 28, 2017)