IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00171-CR

No. 10-12-00172-CR

No. 10-12-00173-CR

No. 10-12-00174-CR

No. 10-12-00175-CR

TROY THOELE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 11-03883-CRF-272, 11-03884-CRF-272, 11-03885-CRF-272, 

11-03886-CRF-272 and 11-03887-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following open pleas of guilty in five separate cause numbers, appellant, Troy 

Daniel Thoele, was convicted of unlawful possession of child pornography, a thirddegree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (West Supp. 2012). In each cause 

number, the indictment alleged ten counts; therefore, appellant pleaded guilty to fifty 
Thoele v. State Page 2

counts of unlawful possession of child pornography. See id. The trial court accepted 

appellant’s pleas and found him guilty on all counts. Appellant was sentenced to ten 

years’ confinement on forty-eight of the counts with the sentences ordered to run 

concurrently. However, appellant received a five-year sentence on count 2 and a tenyear sentence on count 3 of the indictment in appellate cause number 10-12-00171-CR. 

These sentences were ordered to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in the 

other forty-eight counts. Appellant appeals in each of the five appellate cause numbers, 

and we affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 

493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed briefs with this Court, 

addressing each of the five appellate cause numbers and stating that his review of the 

record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 

Accompanying counsel’s briefs are motions to withdraw for each appellate cause 

number. Counsel’s briefs constitute a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in any of the appeals. 

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders

brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it 

must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent 

legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

(en banc).
Thoele v. State Page 3

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling 

authority, there are no reversible errors in any of the trial court’s judgments. Counsel 

has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable 

grounds to advance in any of the five appeals; (2) served a copy of the briefs and 

counsel’s motions to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to 

review the record and to file a pro se response in each appellate cause number.

1 See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. On October 22, 2012, appellant filed a pro se response 

to counsel’s Anders briefs.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire 

record, counsel’s briefs, and appellant’s pro se response and have found nothing that 

would arguably support an appeal in any of the appellate cause numbers. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, 

by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and 

reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 

 

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the 

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether 

the case presents any meritorious issues.’” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
Thoele v. State Page 4

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant in each appellate cause number. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 

(citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an 

attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the 

appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion 

to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is 

frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within five 

days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this 

opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a 

petition for discretionary review in each appellate cause number.

2 See TEX. R. APP. P.

48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

 

 

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these

cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file petitions for 

discretionary review or must file pro se petitions for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for 

rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In 

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Thoele v. State Page 5

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 15, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]