Teliea Thomas v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed September 12, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-24-00056-CR
__________
TELIEA THOMAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14668-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Appellant, Teliea Thomas, of the first-degree felony
offense of injury to a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(1), (e) (West
Supp. 2023). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included
testimony that Appellant’s child, the victim in this case, was emaciated and bruised,
with a tear on his belly and apparent burn marks. The cause of the child’s death was
determined to be protein-calorie malnutrition or starvation with blunt force trauma
as a secondary or contributing factor. The medical examiner testified that the child
had spots of decomposition on him and that he was so severely malnourished that
his skin had no fat or muscle to cling to.
There was also testimony that the child had medical conditions, which made
it difficult for him to swallow. Approximately four months before his death, a
pediatric speech pathologist indicated his level of impairment for feeding,
swallowing, language abilities, and communication was severe, requiring further
rehabilitation for all skills. Appellant was told by medical professionals that the
child needed therapeutic intervention and recommended that the child be seen twice
a week in addition to working on feeding, swallowing, language, and expression
skills at home, but Appellant did not provide access to such therapies. Instead,
Appellant did not bring the child to a follow up appointment after attending an initial
evaluation and failed to reschedule thereafter. Further, two days before the child’s
death, Appellant called the rehabilitation center and requested a discharge for
services. Appellant also neglected to call 9-1-1 for at least forty minutes after finding
the child unresponsive.
The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as alleged in the indictment.
Appellant elected for the trial court to assess her punishment. The trial court
assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life in the Correctional
Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right
to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Counsel
2
also advised Appellant of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the
procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the
record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
September 12, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
1
We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3