Joshua Jerrod Thomas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-14-00220-CR ____________________ JOSHUA JERROD THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11-12337 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Joshua Jerrod Thomas (Thomas) of murder, a first degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at sixty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Thomas timely filed a notice of appeal. Thomas’s 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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 1 Crim. App. 1978). On April 7, 2015, we granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se brief. Thomas filed a pro se brief in response, which raised a number of issues for appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may determine that (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error” or that (2) “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. (citations omitted). We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record in this matter, as well as all briefs, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice 1 Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on April 9, 2015 Opinion Delivered September 9, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ. 3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.
