Michael Terrell Thomas v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00375-CR ________________ MICHAEL TERRELL THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-33700 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Appellant Michael Terrell Thomas pled guilty to the thirddegree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). The trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State thereafter moved to revoke Thomas’s unadjudicated probation, alleging multiple violations of the terms of his community supervision, and Thomas pleaded “true” to several counts. The trial court revoked Thomas’s probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him 1 to six years of confinement. See id. § 12.34 (providing third-degree felony punishment range of two to ten years). Thomas’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that 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). After Thomas’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Thomas to file a pro se response. Thomas has not filed a response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (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. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record 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 have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the 2 appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. ________________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on May 16, 2023 Opinion Delivered May 31, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, 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.
