In Re Ernst & Young LLP--Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 14th District Court of Appeals » 2009 » In Re Ernst & Young LLP--Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-07-00896-CV

Case Date: 02/05/2009

Plaintiff: Thomas Nathan Terrell

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Thomas Nathan Terrell v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 179th District Court of Harris County
Opinion issued April 17, 2008
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-06-00645-CR
NO. 01-06-00646-CR
THOMAS NATHAN TERRELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1007474 and 1007475
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Thomas Nathan Terrell, appeals from convictions for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. 21.11, 22.021 (Vernon 2003). Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses. The jury found
appellant guilty of both offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to 35 years and 20 years in prison, respectively, in
accordance with the terms of an agreement with the State concerning the punishment to be assessed in each case.
Appellant s counsel on appeal has submitted a brief stating his professional opinion that the appeal is without merit and
that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85337.html[8/20/2013 9:07:19 PM]

1400 (1967). Appellant received notice of his right to file a pro se response. More than 30 days have passed, and
appellant has not filed a pro se response brief. We affirm appellant s conviction.
Background
Appellant was the uncle of complainant. Appellant lived with complainant and his family from the time complainant
was approximately five years old. When complainant was between the ages of eight and 14, appellant sexually
assaulted complainant on a regular basis. Complainant testified that appellant touched complainant s sexual organs
with his hand, performed oral sex on complainant, and forced complainant to perform oral sex on him. Complainant
further testified that this occurred hundreds of times over the years. Complainant s therapist and the sheriff s office
detective who investigated complainant s case also testified at trial. Appellant did not present any evidence at trial. The
jury found appellant guilty of each offense.
After the jury found appellant guilty of each of the offenses, appellant and the State agreed to the number of years of
confinement for punishment for each offense and the State agreed that no other charges would be filed in Fort Bend
County regarding certain complainants during a stated period of time. Appellant signed documents stating that he was
guilty of the offenses for which the jury had found him guilty and acknowledging the terms of the agreement. The trial
court sentenced appellant in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal for each conviction. The trial court appointed appellate counsel, who has filed
an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396.Anders
Procedure
The brief submitted by appellant s court-appointed counsel states his professional opinion that there are no arguable
grounds for reversal on appeal and, therefore, that any appeal would lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct.
at 1400. Counsel s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Appellant s counsel sent a copy of the brief to appellant, requested permission to withdraw from the
case, and notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response.
When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant s court-appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable
grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire
record. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court and not counsel determines, after
full examination of proceedings, whether case is wholly frivolous ); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991) (quoting same passage from Anders). In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the
defendant files to his appointed counsel s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
Our role in this Anders appeal is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. Id. at 827. If we
determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to
allow the court-appointed attorney to withdraw. See id. The trial court must then either appoint another attorney to
present all arguable grounds for appeal or, if appellant wishes, allow appellant to proceed pro se. See id. If we
determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal, appellant is entitled to have new counsel address the merits of the
issues raised. Id. Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may [we] address the merits of the issues
raised. Id.
If, on the other hand, we determine from our independent review of the entire record that the appeal is wholly
frivolous, we may affirm the trial court s judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed
the record and have found no reversible error. See id. at 826 28. The holding that there are no arguable grounds for
appeal is subject to challenge by an appellant by a petition for discretionary review filed in the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6.
In accordance with Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 45, 87 S. Ct. at 1400, and Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826 28, we have
reviewed the record and appellant s appointed counsel s Anders brief, and we conclude that no reversible error exists.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85337.html[8/20/2013 9:07:19 PM]

Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel s motion to withdraw. //
Elsa Alcala
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Alcala.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85337.html[8/20/2013 9:07:19 PM]

Download 85337.pdf