In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00460-CR
____________________
MAURICE A. WILLIAMS A/K/A MAURICE ANTONIO WILLIAMS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-09440
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Maurice A. Williams a/k/a Maurice
Antonio Williams pleaded guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence
sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed
Williams on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed
a motion to revoke Williams’s unadjudicated community supervision. Williams
pleaded “true” to violating one condition of his community supervision. The trial
1
court found that Williams violated his community supervision, found Williams
guilty of robbery, and sentenced Williams to twelve years in prison.
Williams’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes Williams’s appeal is frivolous.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 8, 2012, we
granted an extension of time for Williams to file a pro se brief. We received no
response from Williams. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.
We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and
we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order
appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on February 6, 2013
Opinion Delivered February 20, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
1
Williams may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2