Richard M. Thomas v. State ( 2016 )

Opinion issued September 15, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00558-CR
———————————
RICHARD M. THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1411673
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a jury trial, appellant, Richard M. Thomas, was convicted of the offense
of sexual assault of a child between the ages of 14‒17, and the trial court imposed
punishment of 40 years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Thomas timely filed a notice of appeal.
Thomas’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is
without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Although Thomas received a copy of the record and was advised of his right
to file a response, he did not do so.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
2
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note
that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for
appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Deborah D. Summers must immediately send appellant the
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Higley and Huddle.
Do Not Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3