Michael Terrell Thomas v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 31, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00375-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.