David Tyrone Thomas v. State
13-17-00069-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- David Tyrone Thomas was indicted for tampering with evidence and evading arrest; the State alleged he was a habitual felony offender based on three prior felony convictions.
- Thomas pleaded guilty to both offenses, pleaded true to the enhancement allegations, and the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on eight years' community supervision.
- The State moved to revoke probation, alleging four violations: public intoxication arrest (Aug. 17, 2016), failure to report that arrest within 48 hours, violation of a nightly curfew, and violation of a zero-tolerance supervision condition.
- Thomas pleaded true to all four alleged violations; the trial court revoked community supervision and adjudicated guilt.
- The court sentenced Thomas as a habitual offender to 25 years for tampering and 20 years for evading arrest, to run concurrently. Thomas appealed.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous; Thomas filed a pro se response raising multiple issues. The Court conducted an independent review and affirmed, granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of revocation based on admitted violations | Revocation proper because defendant pleaded true to alleged probation violations | Thomas contested various grounds in pro se (e.g., insufficient evidence, defective indictment, mental impairment) | Court found no arguable error; plea admissions supported revocation and adjudication |
| Sentencing as habitual offender | Enhancement allegations were proven by Thomas’s guilty pleas to prior felonies | Thomas contended enhancements/sentence were void or unconstitutional (e.g., Eighth Amendment) | Court accepted guilty pleas to enhancements and affirmed habitual-offender sentence |
| Sufficiency of appellate issues / Anders brief adequacy | Anders brief showed no nonfrivolous grounds; counsel followed required procedures and notified appellant | Thomas filed 17 pro se issues claiming multiple trial and constitutional errors | Court performed full independent review (Penson standard) and found no reversible error; affirmed |
| Motion to withdraw by appellate counsel | Counsel properly moved to withdraw after filing an Anders brief demonstrating frivolousness | Thomas opposed via pro se filings but did not identify meritorious issues | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and instructed counsel to notify Thomas of PDR rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appointed counsel must file brief identifying any nonfrivolous grounds or move to withdraw)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate courts must independently review the record when counsel files an Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas standards for Anders briefs and the handling of pro se responses)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedural safeguards and counsel’s obligations in Anders situations)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty when counsel files Anders brief)