Shawn Patrick Thurman v. the State of Texas
05-20-00794-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2021Background:
- Appellant Shawn Patrick Thurman pleaded guilty to burglary of a building, with punishment enhanced by two prior convictions.
- The trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and entered judgment accordingly.
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw, and provided Thurman a copy.
- The State filed a letter brief agreeing with counsel; the court notified Thurman of his right to file a pro se response but he did not file one.
- The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds to support the appeal.
- The record shows the trial court failed to give the oral immigration-admonishment required by Article 26.13, but the court held that omission was harmless and did not affect Thurman’s substantial rights.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw after filing an Anders brief | Thurman effectively has no nonfrivolous issues (per counsel's evaluation) | State agrees the appeal is frivolous and supports withdrawal | Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction |
| Whether Thurman was afforded the right to file a pro se response | Thurman had the right to file but raised nothing because he did not file | State notes Thurman was informed and filed no response | Court confirmed Thurman was advised of the right and filed no pro se response |
| Whether the omission of the oral immigration admonishment is reversible error | Thurman could claim the admonishment was not given | State concedes omission but argues it did not affect substantial rights | Court found the omission but held it harmless under VanNortrick and Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel may file a brief asserting an appeal is frivolous and seek withdrawal)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (standard for evaluating Anders-type appellate briefs)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedures for counsel's motion to withdraw on appeal)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate review for arguable grounds in Anders context)
- Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (application of frivolous-appeal standards)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant's right to file a pro se response to an Anders brief)
- VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (harmless-error analysis for omitted admonishments)