AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 2, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00794-CR
SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-26068-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of burglary of a building,
enhanced by two prior convictions. The court assessed punishment at ten years
imprisonment and judgment was entered accordingly.
On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes the
appeal is 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining
whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief
to appellant. The State filed a letter brief stating that it agrees with counsel’s
assessment.1 We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did
not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed
by counsel).
As required, appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has
provided appellant with a copy of the motion. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before us that arguably
might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
1
As the State notes, the record does reflect error because the court failed to orally give the
immigration consequences admonishment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13. Nonetheless, we
agree with the State that the record does not demonstrate that this affected appellant’s substantial rights.
See VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).
–2–
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a), (b).
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200794F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-26068-W.
No. 05-20-00794-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
Justices Schenck and Smith
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 2, 2021
–4–