Tomell Marlee Thomas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00439-CR NO. 09-19-00440-CR __________________ TOMELL MARLEE THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 18-10-13143-CR, 18-10-13144-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, appellant Tomell Marlee Thomas pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery and pleaded “not true” to the enhancement paragraph. A jury found Thomas guilty of aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment and also found the enhancement paragraph to be true. In each case, the jury assessed Thomas’s punishment at thirty years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences would run concurrently. 1 Thomas’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s profession evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 26, 2020, we granted an extension of time for Thomas to file pro se briefs. We received no response from Thomas. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on October 15, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 12, 2020 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. Thomas may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1

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.