Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00074-CR
Deundra Michelle WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 277th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10-916-K277
Honorable Ken Anderson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 16, 2013
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Deundra Michelle Williams pled guilty to theft (enhanced) and received deferred
adjudication community supervision for a term of four years on August 18, 2010. On February
29, 2012, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke her community supervision
alleging several violations of the community supervision conditions. The trial court continued
Williams on deferred adjudication community supervision, but modified the conditions of
community supervision to include a period of twenty days’ confinement in jail. A few months
later, the State filed another motion, and an amended motion, to adjudicate guilt and revoke
04-13-00074-CR
community supervision alleging that Williams violated Condition No. 4 by having contact with
Eric Palmer, a disreputable or harmful person, on July 21, 2011 and August 1, 2011, violated
Condition No. 10 by failing to make the required $20 monthly payment, violated Condition No.
11 by failing to pay the $60 monthly supervisory fee, violated Condition No. 13 by failing to
perform the community service restitution hours, and violated Condition No. 19 by being present
in a Wal-Mart store on July 21, 2011. Williams pled “not true” to the alleged violations. After an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Williams violated several conditions of her
community supervision, including Condition No. 19. The court adjudicated Williams guilty and
revoked her community supervision. The court sentenced Williams to six months’ imprisonment
in a state jail facility, and assessed $50 in court costs. Williams now appeals. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
Williams’ court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a
motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Williams with a copy of the brief and motion to
withdraw, and informed her of her right to review the record and file her own pro se brief. See
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns
v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Williams did not file
a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and
agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See id.
-2-
04-13-00074-CR
Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d
at 177 n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Williams wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a
petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion
or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded
to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-