### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00614- CR
Jaqui nn Keith Williams, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 648 97, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appea l pursuant to Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant J aquinn Keith Willi ams pleade d g uilty to the offe nse of attempted ca pital murder. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 19.03 (West Supp. 2011). Following a sentenc ing hear ing, punishment was assessed at 80 y ear s’ imprisonment.

Wil liams was char g ed with intentionally and knowing ly shooting a peac e office r. At the plea hear ing, afte r Wil liams had pleade d g uilty to the offe nse, his judic i al confession was admitted into evidenc e. The district court found the evidenc e suffi ci en t to prove that Wil liams had committed the offe nse, but withheld a finding of g uilt at that time, o rd er ed a p re- sentenc e investigation report, and r eset the c ase f or sentenc ing. At the sentenc ing hear ing, the district court hear d testimony from t h e v i cti m, Marlon Reed, a Temple police office r. Reed testified that on April 3, 2009, he was as signe d to aSW AT team to execute a sear ch war rant on Wil liams’s residenc e. Specifica lly , office rs had rea son to believe that the residenc e contained marihuana
. Acc ording to Reed, “As we hit the door, my job was to make entry as t he first person into the hous e.” As Reed made entry , he “hear d two shots,” “fe ll to the g round,” and rea liz ed that he had been shot. Reed further testified that he had been shot in the elbow and hip, that the shot to his elbow seriously injured the nerve in his arm, and that he was later told by doctors that the nerve damag e was perma nent. Reed and his wife both testified to how the injury had adve rsely

impacted their

lives. The only witness to testify in Wil liams’s defe nse was Kyle Schoepf, Wil liams’s best friend from g rade school and high school. Schoepf testified to Wil liams’s family history , portray ing
a difficult home life that Wil liams had experience d as a child. Schoepf also explained that Wil liams, who was 23 y ear s old, had been selling marihuana since high school, that Schoepf had “tried to talk him out of that lifesty le,” but that Willi ams had “ just decided to stick with what he kne w.” Wil liams’s court-a

ppointed attorney

has filed a

motion to wit hdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there
are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. Stat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Wi lliams was mailed a c opy of counsel’s brief and advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been f iled.

2We have revie wed the rec ord and counsel’s brief and ag ree that the ap p e a l is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ord that might arguably support the appea l. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Affir med Filed: August 9, 2012 Do Not Publish

3