Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-24-00165-CR, 10-24-00166-CR, 10-24-00167-CR

Thomas Earl Roberts, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 278th District Court of Leon County, Texas Judge Hal R. Ridley, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 22-0138CR, 22-0139CR, 22-0105CR JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Thomas Earl Roberts entered open pleas of guilty to two counts of aggravated assault against a public servant and one count of criminally negligent homicide. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.05, 22.02(b)(2)(B).

Following a bench trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Roberts to fifty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on each count of aggravated assault against a public servant and to two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division on the sole count of criminally negligent homicide, to be served concurrently. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.

Roberts’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion in each case asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s briefs evidence a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel.

See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Roberts filed a pro se response, and the State filed a response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108

Thomas Earl Roberts v. The State of Texas Page 2 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in these appeals, including counsel’s briefs, Roberts’s pro se filing in response to the briefs, and the State’s reply, we have determined the appeals to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Counsel’s motions to withdraw from representation of Roberts are granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 29, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed; Motions granted Do Not Publish CRPM

Thomas Earl Roberts v. The State of Texas Page 3