Wendel Warren Williams v. State

NUMBER 13-07-100-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG WENDEL WARREN WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant, Wendel Warren Williams, appeals from his conviction of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2007). Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendre without a plea bargain with the State and pleaded true to his enhancement paragraphs. Following a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to sixty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutions Division. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in which he concluded "this cause is without merit and is frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error." We affirm.I. Compliance with Anders v. California Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he has concluded that there are no arguable grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant's brief meets the requirements of Anders. Id. at 744-45; see High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In compliance with Anders, counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. Counsel has informed this Court that he has diligently reviewed the entire appellate record and the law applicable thereto. Counsel concludes that, in his opinion, the appeal of the judgment of conviction in this cause is without merit and is frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error and that there are no grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel has also certified to this Court that he served a copy of the brief on appellant and informed him that, in counsel's view, the appeal is wholly without merit and that appellant has the right to review the record and to file a pro se appellate brief should he so desire. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc); High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a pro se brief until April 30, 2007, was granted. More than thirty days have now passed, and appellant has not filed any pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also High, 573 S.W.2d at 813. II. Independent Review The United States Supreme Court advised appellate courts that upon receiving a "frivolous appeal" brief, they must conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); see Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."). III. Conclusion The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. IV. Withdrawal of Counsel This Court may grant a motion to withdraw from counsel in connection with an Anders brief. Gearhart v. State, 122 S.W.3d 459, 469 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); see Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting that Anders brief should be filed with request for withdrawal from case)). Counsel has not requested to withdraw from further representation of appellant on appeal. We hereby order counsel to advise appellant of the disposition of this case and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam). We further order counsel to file any motion to withdraw as court-appointed counsel with this Court within ten days of the date of this opinion. NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 10th day of January, 2008.