Kenneth Thomas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-16-00193-CR ________________ KENNETH THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-13358 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Kenneth Thomas 1 pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Thomas guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Thomas on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Thomas’s unadjudicated community 1 The clerk’s record shows that Kenneth Thomas is also known as Kenneth Earl Thomas. 1 supervision. Thomas pleaded “true” to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Thomas had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Thomas guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement. 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, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 6, 2016, we granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Thomas. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice 2 Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on December 27, 2016 Opinion Delivered December 28, 2016 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 3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.
