Destry Thomas v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00184-CR
____________________
DESTRY THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22119
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Destry Thomas is an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections. While
Thomas was serving his sentence on another conviction, he was indicted for the
felony offense of “Harassment by Persons in Certain Correctional Facilities;
Harassment of Public Servant.” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.11 (West 2011). A
jury found Thomas guilty. The jury found the enhancements true and assessed
punishment at life in prison. At trial, Thomas chose to represent himself although
the court appointed a stand-by attorney to assist him with his defense. Both during
1
the pretrial hearings and then at trial, Thomas admitted that he threw urine on the
grievance investigator. He argued during the trial (against the advice of his stand-
by attorney) that he intentionally threw urine on the grievance investigator so they
would place him in a segregated population.
Thomas’s original court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief that
presented counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concluded there are
no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted Thomas at least two
extensions of time to file his pro se brief. On October 4, 2013, we noted that in
granting Thomas’s second motion for an extension of time, it would be a “final”
extension, and that his pro se brief would be due November 27, 2013.
On October 8, 2013, Thomas filed a motion to have another attorney
appointed to represent him on appeal. On October 16, 2013, Thomas filed a pro se
motion requesting the trial court clerk’s office to supplement the record with
certain documents. On the same day, Thomas filed another motion for an extension
of time to file his pro se brief, and argued that the extension was necessary pending
the supplementation of the trial court clerk’s record. This Court issued a letter
requesting that the trial court clerk file a supplemental record in response to
Thomas’s request.
2
Thomas’s original court-appointed appellate counsel was subsequently
allowed to withdraw by the trial court due to a conflict of interest. The trial court
then appointed Thomas a new appellate counsel. 1 On February 3, 2014, Thomas’s
new appellate counsel filed a letter stating that he was adopting the Anders brief of
Thomas’s former appellate counsel.
In response to Thomas’s earlier request, a supplemental clerk’s record was
filed with this Court on February 10, 2014. On March 6, 2014, we sent Thomas a
copy of the supplemental clerk’s record and granted Thomas another extension of
time to file a pro se brief. No response has been filed with this Court.
We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with his court-appointed
counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
judgment. 2
AFFIRMED.
1
Because the trial court appointed new appellate counsel, we need not
address Thomas’s pending motion requesting that appointment.
2
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3
______________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on March 6, 2014
Opinion Delivered April 23, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
4