CourtListener 10287252•Thomas W. Smith v. the State of Texas
Texto completo
Affirm and Opinion Filed December 2, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00711-CR
No. 05-23-00712-CR
THOMAS W. SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 18-10184-86-F & 17-30092-86-F
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Breedlove, and Kennedy
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Appellant Thomas Smith was indicted for possession of a controlled
substance, less than one gram, in cause numbers 18-10184-86-F and 17-30092-86-F.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to the two offenses and was
sentenced to two years’ state jail in each cause; the trial court suspended the
sentences and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. Roughly
two years later, the State moved to revoke community supervision, alleging
appellant violated several conditions of probation. Appellant pleaded true to some
of the allegations, and after hearing evidence, the trial court found appellant had
violated multiple conditions of probation. The trial court revoked appellant’s
community supervision and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in each cause,
with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellate counsel was appointed in the two
causes, and appeal to this Court was perfected.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel for appellant in which he states he has reviewed the record and concluded
there are no arguable issues to support the appeal. He has also filed a brief
supporting the motion pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In
counsel’s motion to withdraw, he states he sent appellant a letter informing him of
his right to review a copy of the record and to a file a pro se brief. We also sent
appellant a letter informing of him of the same rights. Appellant has not filed a brief.
We must conduct our own review of the record and independently determine
if there are any arguable grounds for appeal. See id. at 744. If we conclude counsel
has exercised professional diligence in reviewing the record for error and agree the
appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(orig. proceeding).
Counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why no arguable grounds for appeal exist, and we conclude it meets the requirements
of Anders. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978) (discussing minimum requirements for Anders briefs); Limauro v. State, 675
–2–
S.W.3d 368, 372 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2023, no pet.) (stating that counsel must, when
utilizing the Anders procedure, “draft an exceptionally detailed account, providing
this court a roadmap explaining why, at each turn, there are only frivolous issues to
be raised on appeal”). We have independently reviewed the entire record before us.
We conclude there are no arguable grounds for review and the appeal is wholly
frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009).
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.
/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
230711F.U05
230712F.U05
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THOMAS W. SMITH, Appellant On Appeal from the 86th Judicial
District Court, Kaufman County,
No. 05-23-00711-CR V. Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18-10184-86-
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee F.
Opinion delivered by Justice
Molberg. Justices Breedlove and
Kennedy participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 2nd day of December, 2024.
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THOMAS W. SMITH, Appellant On Appeal from the 86th Judicial
District Court, Kaufman County,
No. 05-23-00712-CR V. Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-30092-86-
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee F.
Opinion delivered by Justice
Molberg. Justices Breedlove and
Kennedy participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 2nd day of December, 2024.
–5–
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.