Rodney Shawn 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. 09-22-00371-CR __________________ RODNEY SHAWN THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-36834 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Rodney Shawn Thomas (“Appellant” or “Thomas”) for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04. Thomas pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court found Thomas guilty, deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Thomas on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. 1 The State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Thomas had violated two terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Thomas pleaded “not true” to the allegations. After hearing evidence, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find the allegations true, revoked Thomas’s community supervision, found Thomas guilty of the offense of third-degree felony possession of a firearm by a felon, and sentenced Thomas to seven years in prison. Thomas appealed. On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Thomas. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error 2 but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”) 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.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on July 12, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 26, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. Thomas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 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.
