Facts
- John Doe was convicted in 2007 for sexual offenses against a minor, leading to a ten-year prison sentence with probation conditions [lines="37-52"].
- After moving to Massachusetts, Doe was notified that he needed to register as a level two sex offender, which he contested [lines="74-77"].
- Following a hearing, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) reclassified him as a level one sex offender in 2018 [lines="78-89"].
- In 2022, SORB reaffirmed Doe's classification after considering high-risk and mitigating factors during another hearing [lines="89-112"].
- Doe appealed the SORB's decision, arguing it was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence [lines="31-33", "114-122"].
Issues
- Whether the hearing examiner erred in interpreting regulatory factor 29 regarding offense-free time in the community [lines="110-112"].
- Whether the classification decision was supported by substantial evidence and reflected a proper exercise of discretion [lines="249-252"].
Holdings
- The hearing examiner correctly interpreted and applied factor 29, concluding that Doe's offense-free time began with his most recent release from custody for a sex offense [lines="247-248"].
- The evidence was sufficient to support the level one classification, as the hearing examiner correctly considered the relevant factors, including Doe's past offenses and current circumstances [lines="273-275"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Affirm and Opinion Filed December 2, 2024
In The No. 05-23-00711-CR No. 05-23-00712-CR V.
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 *2 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 *3 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
JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 86th Judicial
District Court, Kaufman County, No. 05-23-00711-CR V. Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18-10184-86- 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 2 nd day of December, 2024.
JUDGMENT On Appeal from the 86th Judicial
District Court, Kaufman County, No. 05-23-00712-CR V. Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-30092-86- 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 2 nd day of December, 2024.