Harold Lee Thomas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-10-00527-CR ________________ HAROLD LEE THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-06114 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Harold Lee Thomas of harassment in a correctional facility. Thomas pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph, which alleged that Thomas has a prior conviction for burglary of a habitation. The jury sentenced Thomas to seven years in prison. The trial court ordered Thomas s sentence to run consecutively to his prior thirteen-year sentence for burglary of a habitation and his prior sixty-year sentence for aggravated robbery. Thomas appealed. Thomas s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 1 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Thomas filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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. Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Thomas s appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on July 18, 2011 Opinion Delivered July 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2
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.
