Thomas Shanks v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00076-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00076-CR ___________________________

THOMAS SHANKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1753190

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Thomas Shanks pled “not guilty” to the offense of failure to comply

with sex-offender-registration requirements under Code of Criminal Procedure

Chapter 62, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(b)(2), and “not true” to a

repeat-offender notice alleging a July 30, 1998 felony conviction for assault on a

public servant. A jury found Shanks guilty; found “true” the repeat-offender notice,

which increased his punishment range to that of a second-degree felony, see Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a); and assessed his sentence at 20 years’ confinement and a

$10,000 fine, see id. § 12.33.

Shanks’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion in which he avers that, in his

professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),

by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating why no arguable

grounds for relief exist. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510–11 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). Counsel also complied with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 1

In Kelly, the Court of Criminal Appeals listed additional tasks an appointed 1

lawyer who files an Anders brief must perform:

He must write a letter to (1) notify his client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders brief, providing him a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to

2 Although Shanks obtained a copy of the appellate record and filed a pro se

response to the Anders brief, he has not raised arguable grounds for relief. The State

did not file a response but agreed with appellate counsel’s evaluation in a letter to this

court.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills Anders’s requirements, we must

independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be raised on his

behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, the appellate record, and Shanks’s

pro se response. We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that otherwise arguably might

support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting

review the record preparatory to filing that response, and (3) inform him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare his appeal frivolous. To this list we now add that appointed counsel who files a motion to withdraw and Anders brief must also (4) take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes.

436 S.W.3d at 319 (footnote omitted). The court also required counsel to supply the appellant with the mailing address for the court of appeals. Id. at 320.

3 that a memorandum opinion agreeing with appellate counsel that there are no non-

frivolous issues in the case is acceptable in an Anders appeal).

Having found that the appeal is frivolous, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice

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

Delivered: May 8, 2025