TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00514-CR
Tevin Eugene Williams, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 72750, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tevin Eugene Williams pleaded guilty to possession of identifying information, a
second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 32.51 (b)(1), (c)(3). The trial court sentenced him to
six years in prison and imposed a fine of $500. See id. § 12.33 (punishment range for second-degree
felony is 20 years maximum and 2 years minimum with fine up to $10,000).
Williams’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised
appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary
review following dismissal of this appeal as frivolous; and provided appellant with a form motion
for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner,
300 S.W.3d at 766. At appellant’s request, the district court provided appellant with a copy of the
record in this case, but no pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have reviewed the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no
reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents
no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to
withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: December 17, 2014
Do Not Publish
2