eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2023-05

Michael Terrell Thomas v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                                      In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00375-CR
________________
MICHAEL TERRELL THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20-33700
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an open plea, Appellant Michael Terrell Thomas pled guilty to the third-
degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. See
    Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04
    (a), (b)(2)(A). The trial court placed him on deferred
adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State thereafter moved to
revoke Thomas’s unadjudicated probation, alleging multiple violations of the terms
of his community supervision, and Thomas pleaded “true” to several counts. The
trial court revoked Thomas’s probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him
1
to six years of confinement. See
    id.
     § 12.34 (providing third-degree felony
punishment range of two to ten years).
Thomas’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.
See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967); High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
     (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). After Thomas’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension
of time for Thomas to file a pro se response. Thomas has not filed a response.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits
of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and
finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand
the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the
issues.”
    Id.
    Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of
the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988) (citing Anders,
    386 U.S. at 744
    ). We have reviewed the entire
record and counsel’s brief and have found no reversible error, and we conclude the
appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe,
    178 S.W.3d at 
    827–28. Therefore, we find
it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the
2
appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on May 16, 2023
Opinion Delivered May 31, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3