Siang Leng Thang v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-25-00414-CR

___________________________

SIANG LENG THANG, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F24-1263-158

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Siang Leng Thang pleaded guilty to murder and asked a jury to assess his punishment. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1)–(2). The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for life, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. See id. § 12.32.

Thang’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief representing that “no meritorious ground for appeal exists in this case.” See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet Anders’s requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Thang with a copy of the Anders brief and the motion to withdraw, as well as a form request for the appellate record, and informed him of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review in the Court of Criminal Appeals should this court agree that the appeal is frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Thang did not file a pro se response. The State filed a letter waiving a formal response.

We have independently examined the appellate record, as is our duty upon the filing of an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.);

3

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our independent review of the record reveals nothing that might arguably 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).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 6, 2026