John Emerson Thomas a/k/a John 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. 09-10-00529-CR _________________ JOHN EMERSON THOMAS A/K/A JOHN THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ ___ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 81074 _______________________________________________________________ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain, John Emerson Thomas pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. The trial court found Thomas guilty, sentenced him to ten years in prison, suspended the imposition of the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $2500 fine. The State later filed a motion to revoke. Thomas pleaded true to three violations of the community supervision order. The trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Thomas appealed. 1 Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 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). On January 20, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se brief. Thomas filed pro se briefs raising various issues, including ineffective assistance of counsel, defective indictment, and incorrect cause number, and he filed other documents in response, one labeled extraordinary writ of mandamus, complaining of his conviction. In Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), the Court of Criminal Appeals explained the process an appellate court follows in considering Anders briefs and pro se responses. 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 independently examined the clerk's record, the reporter's record, the Anders brief, and the pro se briefs filed by Thomas in this case, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.1 1 Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. 68. Additionally, relief in appropriate cases for 2 AFFIRMED. _____________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on July 19, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 10, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be available by filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 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.
