Thomas Earl Roberts v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00166-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00165-CR, 10-24-00166-CR, 10-24-00167-CR

Thomas Earl Roberts, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 278th District Court of Leon County, Texas Judge Hal R. Ridley, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 22-0138CR, 22-0139CR, 22-0105CR

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thomas Earl Roberts entered open pleas of guilty to two counts of

aggravated assault against a public servant and one count of criminally

negligent homicide. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.05, 22.02(b)(2)(B).

Following a bench trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Roberts to

fifty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division

on each count of aggravated assault against a public servant and to two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division on the sole

count of criminally negligent homicide, to be served concurrently. We affirm

the trial court’s judgment in each case.

Roberts’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief in support of the motion in each case asserting that he has

diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d

493 (1967). Counsel’s briefs evidence a professional evaluation of the record

for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We

conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel.

See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Roberts filed a pro se response, and the State filed a response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all

the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d

300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any

basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108

Thomas Earl Roberts v. The State of Texas Page 2 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in

these appeals, including counsel’s briefs, Roberts’s pro se filing in response to

the briefs, and the State’s reply, we have determined the appeals to be wholly

frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation of Roberts are

granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 29, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motions granted Do Not Publish CRPM

Thomas Earl Roberts v. The State of Texas Page 3