NUMBER 13-10-00550-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
ROY GEORGE THOMAS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 359th District Court
of Montgomery County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Roy George Thomas, appellant, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCInstitutional Division. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 19.02(b)(1) (West 2011).
Thomas=s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack
thereof, of the appeal. Thomas filed a pro se response. We affirm.1
I. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant=s
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review
of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated.
Although counsel=s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does
present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (AIn 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).
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 errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)
served a copy of the brief and counsel=s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3)
informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within
1 This case was transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization
order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).
2
thirty days.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. As stated previously, Thomas filed a pro se
response.
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 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, appellant’s pro
se brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.@); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant=s attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 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.) (noting that A[i]f 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
2
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe 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.)).
3
brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.@) (citations omitted)). We
grant counsel=s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court=s opinion,
counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise
appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
__________________________
GINA M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of May, 2012.
3
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing
that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4