Shawn Patrick Thurman v. the State of Texas

Opinion

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 2, 2021

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00794-CR

SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-26068-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of burglary of a building,

enhanced by two prior convictions. The court assessed punishment at ten years

imprisonment and judgment was entered accordingly.

On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining

whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. The State filed a letter brief stating that it agrees with counsel’s

assessment.1 We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did

not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed

by counsel).

As required, appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has

provided appellant with a copy of the motion. See 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 reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before us that arguably

might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006).

1 As the State notes, the record does reflect error because the court failed to orally give the immigration consequences admonishment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13. Nonetheless, we agree with the State that the record does not demonstrate that this affected appellant’s substantial rights. See VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).

–2– Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a), (b).

/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 200794F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-26068-W. No. 05-20-00794-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Schenck and Smith THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered November 2, 2021

–4–