In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00056-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1543324D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

KEDRICK DEON THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kendrick Deon Thomas appeals his conviction for arson of a 

habitation, a first-degree felony to which he made an open plea of guilty in a bid for 

community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.02(a), (d)(2). The trial court 

found the indictment’s deadly weapon allegations true and sentenced him to eleven 

years’ confinement. See id. § 12.32 (stating first-degree felony punishment term as

confinement 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 motion to withdraw as 

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). While counsel’s brief and motion did not strictly

follow the requirements of Anders v. California, which requires presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds 

for relief, cf. id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400,

1 we independently examined the entire record, as is 

our duty upon the filing of an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort 

1Counsel’s Anders brief here provides only conclusions and no analysis. Cf. 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 & nn.2–3 (identifying first Anders brief that merely made 

conclusions as “obviously deficient” and complaining that second Anders brief’s 

“cursory review of the evidence” was also inadequate). While our review of the 

record reflects that the appeal is indeed frivolous, i.e., that counsel came to the right 

conclusion, we expect a more diligent demonstration of the work leading to that 

conclusion from an attorney who files an Anders brief.
3

Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 

(1988). Appellant filed a pro se response. The State agreed with Appellant’s counsel’s 

assessment of the case and has not filed a brief. 

We have carefully reviewed the 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 nothing 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 and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 27, 2020

2Based on our stringent review of the record and our conclusion that the appeal 

is indeed frivolous, ordering counsel to file another brief or abating the appeal for the 

appointment of new appellate counsel would result in a waste of resources for all 

involved because there are no arguable issues presented on this record. Cf. Stafford, 

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