## In the Court of Appeals Second Ap pellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00056

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Crim i nal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 15 43324D
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ. Memorand um Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### K EDRICK 

### D EON 

### T HOMAS 

### , Appellan t

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Kendrick Deon T homas appeals his conviction for arson of a
h abitation , a fir st

- degree felony to which he made an open plea of guilty in a bid for community supervision

. S e e Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.02(a), (d)(2)

. The trial court
found the indictment ’ s deadly weapon a llegations true and sentenced him to ele ven
y e ars ’ confinement

. See id

. § 12.32 (sta ting first

- degree felony p unishment term as confinem e nt for life or not less than 5 years or more than 99 years and up to a $10,000 fine ). Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a motio n to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738,
744

– 4 5, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). While c ounsel’s brief and motion did not strictly
follow the requirements of Anders v. California , which requires presenting a professional evaluation o f the record demonstrating why there are no a rguable grounds
for relief , c f. i d

. , 87 S . Ct. at 1400 , 1 we independently examined the entire record , as is

our duty upon the filing of an An ders brief

. See Stafford v. St

ate , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort

1 Counsel ’ s Anders brief here provides only conclusions and no analysis. Cf. Staff ord , 813 S .W.2d at 510 & n n .2

– 3 ( identifying firs t Anders brief that merely made conclusions as “ obviously deficient ” and complaining that second Anders brief ’ s
“ cursory review of the evidence ” was also in ad equ ate ). While our review of the record reflects that the appeal is indeed frivolous, i.e., that counsel came t o the right conclusion, we ex pect a more diligent demonstra tion of the work leading to that
conc lusion from an attorney who files an Anders brief.3

Worth 1 995, no pet.) ; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Appellant file d a pro se response
. T he State agreed with Appel lant ’ s counsel ’ s assessment of the case and has not filed a brief.
We have ca refully reviewed th e record , counsel’s brief , 2 and Appellant ’ s pro se
response and have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit;
we find no thing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.
State , 178 S.W. 3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex . Crim . App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw an d affirm the trial court ’ s judgment

.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47. 2(b)
Deli vered : February 27, 2020

2 Based on our stringent review of the record and o ur c onclusion that the appeal is indeed frivolous, ordering counsel to file another brief or abating the appea l for th e appointment of new appellate counse l would result in a waste of resources for all involved because there are no arguable issues presente d on this record

. Cf. Stafford , 813 S .W.2d at 510 & n. 2 , 511

.