Thomas Ray Mahon v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-22-00096-CR
THOMAS RAY MAHON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021F00074
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Cass County jury convicted Thomas Ray Mahon of family violence assault by
occlusion causing bodily injury, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.01(b)(2)(B) (Supp.). In accordance with the jury’s assessment, the trial court sentenced
Mahon to ten years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay a $3,000.00 fine. Mahon appeals.1
Mahon’s attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court
proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders
v. California. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978).
Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On March 20, 2023, counsel mailed to Mahon copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the
motion to withdraw. Mahon was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se
response. Mahon timely filed his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the entire appellate record and Mahon’s pro se response and, like counsel, have
1
In companion causes 06-22-00097-CR, 06-22-00098-CR, and 06-22-00099-CR, Mahon appeals convictions for
aggravated sexual assault and two counts of aggravated assault.
2
determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is
without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: July 5, 2023
Date Decided: July 6, 2023
Do Not Publish
2
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
3