Darin Ramone Thomas v. State

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 11, 2014. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00912-CR DARIN RAMONE THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-58074-H MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown Opinion by Justice O’Neill Darin Ramone Thomas waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at fourteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130912F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DARIN RAMONE THOMAS, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-13-00912-CR V. F12-58074-H). Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered September 11, 2014. -3-