Opinion
05-20-00670-CR
10-27-2021
KENNETH WAYNE THOMAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F86-85539
Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
In 1987, Kenneth Wayne Johnson was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for capital murder. In 2010, the court of criminal appeals granted habeas corpus relief as to punishment only. Ex parte Thomas, No. AP-76, 405, 2010 WL 3430699 (Tex. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2010) (not designated for publication) (per curiam). The trial court held a new punishment hearing in 2014, and appellant again received a death sentence. On direct appeal, the court of criminal appeals held that appellant was entitled to another new punishment hearing because the jury was not presented with the proper diagnostic framework regarding appellant's claim of intellectual disability. Thomas v. State, No. AP-77, 047, 2018 WL 6332526, at * 1-2 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2018) (not designated for publication). On June 4, 2020, after the State withdrew its motion to seek the death penalty, the trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the 2020 punishment hearing.
On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State 572 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant, and by letter dated April 14, 2021, we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response by May 17, 2021. We further advised appellant that failure to file a pro se response by that date would result in the case being submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED