Shawn Patrick Thurman v. The State of Texas Appeal from 363rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 26, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00790-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. F18-26069-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) 200790F.U05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, Appellant No. 05-20-00790-CR On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-26069-W. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Schenck and Smith participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered October 26, 2021 –4–
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.
