TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00331-CR
Eric Danile Thompson aka Eric Danilo Thompson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 68023, THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Eric Danile Thompson aka Eric Danilo Thompson pled guilty and judicially
confessed to the fraudulent possession of more than fifty items of identifying information, a first
degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 32.51(a), (b)(1), (c)(4). In addition, Thompson pled true
to an enhancement allegation alleging a prior conviction for third-degree debit card abuse.1 See id.
§ 32.31. After hearing evidence, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced pursuant to the repeat
offender punishment provision of the Penal Code, at confinement for 35 years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 12.42(c)(1).
Thompson’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
1
The record reflects that the prior conviction was a third degree felony because of the date
of Thompson’s conviction.
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988).
Counsel provided a copy of the brief and the record to Thompson and advised him
of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel’s brief and the plea
proceedings, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766;
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the
record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
Affirmed
Filed: June 19, 2013
Do Not Publish
2