Court Opinion

ID: 9399164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 07:09:46.016444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:39.028051
License: Public Domain

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