## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00 056

- CR

_________

_ _________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1540335D
Before Womack, Wallach, Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### D AMANDRE 

### D EON 

### W ILLIAMS 

### , Appellant

V


### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Damandre D eon Williams appe als from his burglary

- of

- a
- habitation conviction and resulting four

- year sentence. Finding no arguable or potenti ally plausible gro unds to support the appeal, we affirm the trial cou rt ’ s jud gment. See Tex.
R . App. P. 43.2(a). In 2018, a grand jury indicted W il li am s with entering Debra Carroll ’ s habitation without her consent an d with the intent to commit assault on Debra ’ s daughter and Williams ’ s girlf

riend , Rozanetta Carroll

. Debra and Rozanetta had testified before the grand jury. The indictment also contained a repeat

- offender notice alleging that Williams had been convicted of felony assault causing bod ily inj ury to his then

girlfriend in 2011. Four months after the indictment, Rozanet ta filed an affid avit of nonprosecution , requesting that the indictment be dismissed because she did “ not want this case prosecuted. ” 1 In 2019, the State moved for a competenc y determin ation based o n Williams ’ s past me ntal

- he alth history , which w as ordered

. A magistrate found Williams incompetent to stand trial and he was committed. Almost three months later , the magistrate found Williams competent to stand trial.
In Decemb er 2019, t he State waived the repea t

- of f ender notice a nd , in exchange, Williams pleaded nolo contendere to the i ndictment after receiving the

1 Williams and Rozanetta married in J anuary 2020

.3

applicable admonishments

. 2 Williams affirmed that he was guilty of the charged offense and that all fact s alleged in the in dictment we re t rue. A s part of the resul ting presentence

- investigation report (the PSI) , which was delayed due to the COVID
pan demic , Rozanetta submitted a victim

- impac t letter asking that Will iams receive

commun ity supervision because he was “ a changed m an. ” Debra also asked for community supervision as punishment for Williams based on his changed attitude and conduct. At the May 202 1 sentencing hearing, the tria l court took judicial notice of the PSI

. William s ’ s counsel pointed out William s ’ s compli ance while out on bond ( except for “ one little mess

- up ” when he test ed positive for marijuan a use in J anuary 2020 ) and the fact that Williams had chan ged from how he was bef ore the competency
pro ceeding s because his men ta l

- health issues had been addressed. The State argued f or confinement based on Williams ’ s criminal history

. The trial c ourt assessed his

2 This type of bargain with the State is a charge barg ain

— “ h is precise p unishment had been left unresolved for the trial court to decide. ” Harper v. State , 567 S.W.3d 450, 455 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). Even though the trial cour t incorrect ly in dicated in i ts certification that Wil liams had the r ight to appeal bec ause the case was “ not a plea

- bargain case , ” o ur jurisdiction over this appeal could be called into questio n . S ee , e.g. , Mayfield v. State , No. 02

- 19

- 00343

- CR, 2019 WL 6 335421, at *2 (Tex. App.

— F or t Worth Nov. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op ., not de signated for publication)

. H ow ever, we note that the written admo nishment that Williams “ give[s] up and waive[s] any and all rights of appeal ” was marked out , which could indicat e that Will iams was g ranted permission to appeal from his plea bargain

. See , e.g. , Craven v. State , No s . 02

- 11

- 0008 9

- CR, 02

- 11

- 00090

- CR , 2012 WL 2036449, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 7, 2012, pet. ref ’d) ( per curiam) (mem. op., not de signated for publ ication)

.4

sentence at four yea rs ’ confinement. Williams filed a pro se notice o f appeal and the

tr ial court appointed counsel to represent Williams on a ppeal

. W illiams ’ s court

- appointed appellat e counsel has filed a motion to wit hdraw ,

accom panied by a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel s ta tes that in his professional opinion, the appeal is fri volous and without merit bec ause there are

no arguable grounds to be raised

. Counsel ’ s brief and motion me et the requirements of Anders v. California by prese nting a p rofessio nal evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no potentially p lausible grou nds for relief. 386 U .S. 738 , 7 4 4 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967) ; see I n re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 40 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 008) (orig. proceeding)

. Counsel has discussed the trial court ’ s jur isdiction, the facts leading to Wi lli ams ’ s nolo contendere plea , the facts surrounding the PSI , t he evidence considere d by the trial court in assessing punishment, and w hy the record and the applicable law reveal no argu able g rou nd s for an appeal

. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978 )

. After being giv e n access to the appellate record , Williams responded and argued that his no lo contendere plea had been involuntary beca use his counsel “ did not presen t [Debra ’ s and Rozanetta ’ s] exculpatory recantation of their statements, ” which he asserts establishes h i s actual in nocence of the charge d offense

. 3 S ee Kelly v.

3 The record does not indicate that Debra and Rozanetta withdrew their accusations ; it indi cates only that Rozanetta did not want Williams prosecuted and that Debra and Rozanetta believed community supervision would be an appropriate punishment. In any ev ent, actual innoc ence based on newl y discovered evidence is5

State , 436 S.W.3d 31 3, 319

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

. The State responded that it agreed wi th ap pellate counsel that there are no grounds upon which to advance Willi ams ’ s a ppeal. Once an appellant ’ s court

- ap pointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfil ls the requirements of An ders , we have a supervisory obligation to undertake an independent examin ation of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S. W.2d 503, 5 11 (Tex. Crim. A p p. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). In this evaluatio n, we consider the record, the arguments raised in the Anders brief, and any resp onse filed by the pro se appellant. See Un ited States v. Wagner , 158 F .3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998); Schulman , 2 52 S.W.3d at 40 8

– 0 9

. We have carefull y reviewed the entire rec ord , counsel ’ s brief, and Williams ’ s pro se response . W e independently c onc lude that there is nothing in the record that mi ght arguabl y sup port the ap p eal and that the appeal is frivolous. Se e Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Te x. Crim. App. 20 05)

. Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to w ithdraw and af

firm the trial cou rt ’ s judgme nt
. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 , 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988); Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 318

– 19 ; Mez a v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 68 9 (Tex. Crim. App . 2006)

.

appropriately raised in a post

- conviction writ of ha beas corp u s . See Ex parte Brown , 205 S.W.3d 538 , 544

– 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 20 06 ) ; Roberts v. State , No. 10

- 12

- 00075

- CR , 2012 WL 313798 0, a t * 2 (T ex. App.

— Waco Aug . 2, 2012, no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

.6 /s/ Br ian Walker Brian Walker J ustice Do Not Publis h Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : March 24, 202 2