Fred Loualex Rodgers v. State
Opinion
Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed March 30, 2021.
In the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-19-00216-CR FRED LOUALEX RODGERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18-CCR-206134 DISSENTING OPINION
The court affirms appellant Fred Rodgers’s conviction and sentence for an offense he did not commit—failure to identify.1 All of this has occurred because the State did not charge appellant with the offense for which appellant could have easily been convicted—giving a false or fictious name.2
I do not question that appellant did not initially identify himself during the transaction with Officer Graves. In that transaction he also initially identified himself as “Terrance Rogers.” But during that transaction with Officer Graves, appellant eventually did identify himself.3 How much time during a continuous transaction does a defendant have to respond to a peace officer’s request to identify? Ten minutes? Five minutes? Fifteen seconds? The court draws no lines.
Also troubling is the conclusion that appellant was under arrest, even though Officer Graves told appellant he was detained, not arrested.4 Were the State to have charged appellant with the offense of giving a false or fictious name, this would not be an issue.
Because legally-sufficient evidence in the record conclusively established that appellant did identify himself to Officer Graves, appellant simply did not commit the offense for which the State charged him.
I dissent.
/s/ Charles A. Spain
Justice Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson (Wilson, J., majority). Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But y’all still charged with him failure to I.D., right?
A. Yes, sir.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.