Thomas v. State

Summary

The court dismissed Thomas's appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition because the record showed that he could not prevail, making his motion to duplicate his brief at public expense moot. The court held that his sufficiency challenge was not cognizable under Rule 37.1 and that his ineffective-assistance allegations were either legally inapplicable to a guilty plea and sentencing proceeding or conclusory and unsupported by facts demonstrating deficient performance or prejudice.