In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00045-CR
DEWAYNE NEAL WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013F00410
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dewayne Neal Williams appeals his conviction for assault (family violence) by
strangulation, enhanced by one prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42,
22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2013). Williams was sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment, plus
thirty days’ confinement for contempt, to run concurrently. Williams was represented by
different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.
Williams’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
trial court proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the
evidence elicited during the course of the proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders,
counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Williams on May 6, 2014, informing Williams of
his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. Counsel also filed a motion with this
Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Williams with a form to
request pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 Tex.
App. LEXIS 911, at **14–15 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). Williams has neither filed nor
requested an extension of time in which to file a pro se response. Williams has not requested pro
se access to the appellate record.
2
When counsel files an Anders brief, we are to determine whether the appeal is without
merit. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In such a case, the appeal
must be either dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: July 15, 2014
Date Decided: August 20, 2014
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of Williams in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Should Williams wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of
this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled
by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply
with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3