Harold Lee Thomas v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-07-249 CR ____________________

HAROLD LEE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98711

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Harold Lee Thomas was indicted for burglary of a habitation. Thomas pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Thomas guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Thomas on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Thomas's unadjudicated community supervision. Thomas pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Thomas violated the terms of his community supervision, found Thomas guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at thirteen years of confinement. Thomas then filed this appeal.

Thomas's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Thomas filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]" or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 19, 2007

Opinion Delivered January 2, 2008

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.