Thomas Creech v. The State of Texas Appeal from 424th District Court of Llano County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00743-CR Thomas Creech, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY, 424TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR6350, THE HONORABLE DANIEL H. MILLS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant Thomas Creech of murder, see Tex. Penal Code § 19.02, and assessed his punishment at confinement for 75 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, see id. § 12.32. Appellant s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81 82 (1988). Appellant s counsel represented to this Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant along with a letter advising appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Appellant requested an extension of time to file a response, which this Court granted, but no pro se brief or other written response has been filed. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Affirmed Filed: September 11, 2014 Do Not Publish 2
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.
