Court Opinion

ID: 9411871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 07:09:30.402307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.456660
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-22-00371-CR
                              __________________

                   RODNEY SHAWN THOMAS, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 21-36834
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

        A grand jury indicted Appellant Rodney Shawn Thomas (“Appellant” or

“Thomas”) for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04. Thomas pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea

bargain agreement, and the trial court found Thomas guilty, deferred adjudication of

guilt, placed Thomas on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000

fine.

                                         1
      The State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Thomas had violated two

terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Thomas pleaded

“not true” to the allegations. After hearing evidence, the trial court found the

evidence sufficient to find the allegations true, revoked Thomas’s community

supervision, found Thomas guilty of the offense of third-degree felony possession

of a firearm by a felon, and sentenced Thomas to seven years in prison. Thomas

appealed.

      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Thomas.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings 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 we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. 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

                                          2
but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                         LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                               Justice

Submitted on July 12, 2023
Opinion Delivered July 26, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

      1
         Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
                                        3