IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12-00171-CR
No. 10-12-00172-CR
No. 10-12-00173-CR
No. 10-12-00174-CR
No. 10-12-00175-CR
TROY THOELE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 11-03883-CRF-272, 11-03884-CRF-272, 11-03885-CRF-272,
11-03886-CRF-272 and 11-03887-CRF-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following open pleas of guilty in five separate cause numbers, appellant, Troy
Daniel Thoele, was convicted of unlawful possession of child pornography, a third-
degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (West Supp. 2012). In each cause
number, the indictment alleged ten counts; therefore, appellant pleaded guilty to fifty
counts of unlawful possession of child pornography. See id. The trial court accepted
appellant’s pleas and found him guilty on all counts. Appellant was sentenced to ten
years’ confinement on forty-eight of the counts with the sentences ordered to run
concurrently. However, appellant received a five-year sentence on count 2 and a ten-
year sentence on count 3 of the indictment in appellate cause number 10-12-00171-CR.
These sentences were ordered to run consecutively with the sentences imposed in the
other forty-eight counts. Appellant appeals in each of the five appellate cause numbers,
and we affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed briefs with this Court,
addressing each of the five appellate cause numbers and stating that his review of the
record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated.
Accompanying counsel’s briefs are motions to withdraw for each appellate cause
number. Counsel’s briefs constitute a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in any of the appeals.
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders
brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it
must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent
legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
(en banc).
Thoele v. State Page 2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling
authority, there are no reversible errors in any of the trial court’s judgments. Counsel
has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable
grounds to advance in any of the five appeals; (2) served a copy of the briefs and
counsel’s motions to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to
review the record and to file a pro se response in each appellate cause number.1 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. On October 22, 2012, appellant filed a pro se response
to counsel’s Anders briefs.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire
record, counsel’s briefs, and appellant’s pro se response and have found nothing that
would arguably support an appeal in any of the appellate cause numbers. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs,
by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and
reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether
the case presents any meritorious issues.’” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
Thoele v. State Page 3
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant in each appellate cause number. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17
(citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an
attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the
appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion
to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within five
days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a
petition for discretionary review in each appellate cause number.2 See TEX. R. APP. P.
48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these
cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file petitions for
discretionary review or must file pro se petitions for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for
rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of
the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply
with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Thoele v. State Page 4
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 15, 2012
Do not publish
[CR25]
Thoele v. State Page 5