Court Opinion

ID: 4439881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-20 00:13:06.100545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:33.626483
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-18-00316-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

 DARNELL BUBBA THOMAS, JR.,                        §       APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                                §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                          §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM
       Darnell Bubba Thomas, Jr., appeals his conviction for sexual assault. Appellant’s counsel
filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                           BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault. Appellant elected to waive a
jury trial and plead “guilty” to the indictment pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant signed a written
stipulation of evidence establishing all the elements of the offense, a waiver of his rights to a jury
trial, and an acknowledgement of admonishments. The trial court accepted Appellant’s “guilty”
plea, but in accordance with the plea bargain, deferred a finding of “guilt” and placed him on
community supervision for a term of ten years. The State later filed an application to adjudicate
Appellant’s guilt and revoke his community supervision, alleging that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s application to revoke,
Appellant pleaded “true” and signed a written stipulation of evidence to allegations that he failed
to (1) satisfactorily perform community service restitution, (2) pay court costs, and (3) attend and
participate fully in and successfully complete psychological counseling/treatment sessions,
including aftercare, for sex offenders. Appellant pleaded “not true” to allegations that he failed to
(1) notify his community supervision officer that he moved, (2) pay a $50 Crimestoppers Program
fee, and (3) comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act by failing to provide written notice of
a change of address to the appropriate law enforcement authority. After hearing testimony from
Appellant’s community supervision officer and Appellant, the trial court found all the allegations
in the State’s application to revoke to be “true” and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment.
This appeal followed.

                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has diligently reviewed and evaluated the appellate
record and found no error for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 1
         We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the
record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.

                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
         Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief
has been filed.

                                                          2
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within
thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing
was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition
for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered September 18, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

                                         NO. 12-18-00316-CR

                               DARNELL BUBBA THOMAS, JR.,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0517-16)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.