Thomas Leon Kindle v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-24-00262-CR
________________

THOMAS LEON KINDLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25171
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, Appellant Thomas Leon Kindle was convicted of one

count of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child by contact,

both second degree felonies. 1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. §§ 22.011; 21.11. The

1Originally, the State charged Kindle with continuous sexual assault of a child

but abandoned the language in the indictment necessary for continuous sexual
assault of a child.
1
jury assessed his punishment at twenty years incarceration for each count, and the

trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Kindle’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). On January 16, 2025, after Kindle’s counsel filed his brief, we

granted an extension of time for Kindle to file a pro se brief. Kindle did not file a

pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine 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 we have found no reversible error, and we conclude

the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28. Therefore, we

2
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.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on May 30, 2025
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

2Kindle may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3