Thomas Earl Henderson, III v. The State of Texas Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed November 7, 2019 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-19-00194-CR ___________ THOMAS EARL HENDERSON, III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-18-1450-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Thomas Earl Henderson, III, originally pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. Less than two months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. At a hearing on the State’s amended motion, Appellant pleaded true to all ten of the State’s allegations. The trial court found all of the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement for forty years plus the delinquent amount of the previous fine, fees, and costs. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant asserts in his response that he would like a sentence of less than forty years. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community 2 supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In this regard, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based upon our review of the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM November 7, 2019 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2 Willson, J., not participating. 1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
