In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00173-CR
MARCELLUS YWAIN ADAMS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 68,779-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding
September 10, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Marcellus Ywain Adams was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault
on a family member with a deadly weapon. At trial, he admitted that he shot his
girlfriend with a firearm but claimed it was self-defense. The jury found him guilty and
assessed punishment of twenty-five years imprisonment. The trial court pronounced
sentence, in open court, mirroring the jury’s determination.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein she certifies that, after diligently searching the record she
concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, she filed a copy of a
letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible
error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se. Appellant was also told of his right to
secure a copy of the record should he care to file a pro se response. Counsel for
appellant drafted for and delivered to his client a document facilitating the acquisition of
the appellate record. By letter, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his
own brief or response by September 4, 2015, if he wished to do so. Appellant filed a
response and asserted therein that he acted in self-defense and that witnesses lied at
trial.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel 1)
mentioned the effort applied to uncover issue of arguable merit, 2) discussed the law
applicable to the crime with which appellant was charged, its application to the
circumstances at bar, and the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the jury’s verdict,
and 3) concluded that no arguable grounds for a meritorious appeal existed.
Regarding appellant’s complaint concerning the veracity of those testifying
against him, the law dictates that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight to be assigned their testimony, and we must defer to its
decision. Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). A reviewing
court cannot simply disregard the credibility choices made by the jury, and those
choices at bar favored acceptance of the testimony proffered by witnesses contradicting
appellant’s version of events.
1
Anders v. Califorina, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
We also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also failed to uncover arguable error.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3