In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00178-CR
__________________
CARL WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-23005
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carl Williams appeals from his conviction for possessing a deadly
weapon in a penal institution. 1 Williams’ conviction is based on a plea
agreement he made with the State, which the trial court relied on when
it sentenced Williams to serve a ten-year sentence. Under the terms of
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.10 (Deadly Weapon in a Penal
Institution).
1
Williams’ agreement, the trial court suspended Williams’ sentence and
placed him on community-supervision (probation) for five years.
Twenty-one months later, the State moved to revoke the trial
court’s community-supervision order, alleging that Williams had violated
six of the conditions required of him by the order. The State asked that
the trial court conduct a hearing and determine whether Williams’
probation should be revoked. In May 2022, which is when the trial court
heard the motion, Williams pleaded “true” to having violated six specific
conditions that were required of him by his community-service order.
The trial court revoked the community-supervision order and
signed a judgment. However, the trial court didn’t require Williams to
complete the ten-year sentence that it had imposed when it originally
pronounced Williams’ sentence. Instead, the court advised Williams that
the court was “going to set your punishment at five years[’] confinement
in the penitentiary with credit for any time served.” And following the
hearing, the trial court signed a Judgment Revoking Community
Supervision, which reflects that the trial court reformed Williams’
sentence by reducing his punishment from ten years in prison to five.
2
After the trial court signed the reformed judgment, Williams
appealed. Williams’ court-appointed attorney discharged his
responsibilities to Williams by filing an Anders brief.2 Williams’ attorney
represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in
Williams’ appeals. The brief the attorney filed contains a professional
evaluation of the record and explains why, under the record in Williams’
case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.3
Williams’ attorney represented that he sent Williams a copy of the briefs,
and he explained to Williams how he could arrange to request a copy of
the appellate record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth
Court of Appeals notified Williams, by letter, that he could file a pro se
brief or response with the court on or before May 15, 2023. Williams,
however, failed to respond.
When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to
independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney
assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that
2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
3See id.
3
would support the appeal.4 After reviewing the record, we agree with
counsel’s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal.
Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.5 For that reason, we need not
require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.6
The trial court’s judgment in Trial Court Cause Number 15-23005 is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 26, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
4Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at
744).
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
5See
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion
that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record
for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
6See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Williams may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4