Vanessa Denise Thomas v. State
05-16-00465-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Vanessa Denise Thomas was adjudicated guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was wholly frivolous and provided appellant a copy.
- The court notified Thomas of her right to file a pro se response; none was filed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief and found no arguable grounds for appeal.
- The court detected a clerical error in the trial court’s judgment: it incorrectly stated sex-offender registration did not apply and failed to reflect the victim’s age.
- The appellate court modified the judgment on its own motion to show sex-offender registration applies and that the victim was six years old, and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal presents non-frivolous issues under Anders | Thomas (through counsel) effectively concedes no arguable issues; appellant did not rely on any specific issues | State argues the Anders procedure was followed and no meritorious issues exist | Court agreed the appeal was frivolous and without merit |
| Whether appellant was entitled to raise pro se issues after Anders brief | Thomas had notice and the opportunity to file a pro se response but did not file one | State notes appellant was advised and declined to respond | Court found procedural requirements satisfied and no pro se response was filed |
| Whether the judgment correctly reflected sex-offender registration requirements | Thomas’s judgment incorrectly stated registration did not apply (not advanced as an appellate issue) | State did not contest modification to correct the clerical error | Court modified the judgment to state registration requirements apply |
| Whether the judgment correctly reflected victim’s age | Appellant’s record shows victim age is six (not contested on appeal) | State did not dispute correcting the age in judgment | Court modified the judgment to show the victim was six and affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel concluding appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (requirements for Anders brief in Texas)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellate and counsel duties in Anders cases)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate court review in Anders cases)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (authority for modifying judgments)
- Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (modification of judgment to correct clerical errors)