Ernest Peter Thomas v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2014
• Docket: 01-13-00086-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 17, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-13-00086-CR ——————————— ERNEST PETER THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-09929

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ernest Peter Thomas, was convicted of the offense of sexual

assault and sentenced to two years’ confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 12.33, 22.011(a)(1)(A) (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that

warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,

193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the brief to

appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file

a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at

1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

2 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (same).

Appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Thomas J. Burbank must immediately send

appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3