Thad Anthony May Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00276-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00276-CR __________________

THAD ANTHONY MAY JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00002 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thad Anthony May Jr. (Appellant or May) appeals his conviction for

possession of a controlled substance. We affirm.

In 2022, May was charged by information for possession of a controlled

substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount of one gram or more but less

than four grams, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §

481.115(c). In a plea agreement, May pleaded guilty to the offense and waived his

right to indictment and a jury trial. The trial court found May guilty, deferred

1 adjudication, and placed May on community supervision for three years and assessed

a $3000 fine. On June 26, 2022, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated

Community Supervision alleging May committed seven violations of his community

supervision. At a hearing on August 18, 2022, the State abandoned three of the

alleged violations, and May pleaded “not true” to the other four allegations in the

motion to revoke. The trial court heard evidence on the alleged violations, found

allegations 2 (failed to abstain from drug/alcohol use from 02/14/22 to 03/07/22), 3

(failed to abstain from drug/alcohol use from 03/07/22 to 04/08/22), and 7 (failed to

complete monthly community service) true that May had violated the terms of his

community supervision, found him guilty of the third-degree felony offense of

possession of a controlled substance, and imposed punishment at four years. May

appealed.

On appeal, the court-appointed attorney for May filed a brief wherein the

attorney stated that he had 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 May to file a pro

se brief, and we received no response from May.

We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree

with May’s counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it

2 unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief May’s appeal. Cf.

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the

judgment of the trial court.1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on February 8, 2023 Opinion Delivered February 15, 2023 Do Not Publish

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

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3