### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00529

- CR

Reginald Williams , Appellant

v.
The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1- DC -21-904023 , THE HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Reginald Williams of the offense of murder and
assessed punishment at 25 years ’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 . The district court
sentenced Williams in accordance with the jury ’ s verd ict. This appeal followed.
W illiams ’ s court

- appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluat io n of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id . at 744 -45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 81

– 82 (1988); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
Counsel has certified to this Court that h e has provided Williams with a cop y of the motion and brief, advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State ,2 436 S.W. 3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

. No pro se brief or other response has
been filed. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson , 488 U.S. at 80; B leds oe

v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The indictment alleged in th ree paragraphs that on or about
Octo ber 13, 2019, Williams either (1) intentionally or knowingly cau sed the death of Emmett
Infante Ramo s by shooting him with a firearm ; (2) committ ed an act clearly dangerous to human
life , with intent to cause serious bodil y injury, that caused the death of Ramos by shooting him
with a firearm ; or (3) committed or attem pted to commit the offense of robbery and , in the course

o f and in furtherance of and in immediate flight from the commis sion of t hat offense , commit ted an act clearly dangerous to human life tha t caused the death of Ramos by shooting him with a
firearm. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (b)(1), (2), (3)

. The jury heard evidence that Ramos was killed during a drug deal . Ramos ’ s girlfriend, Deisy Calderon, testified that Ramos had a rranged to sell THC cartridges to a buyer on the night that he was killed . Ramos and Calderon drove to the location specified by the buyer
and , upon arriv al at that location , Ramos got out of the car and walked to the back of the vehicle with the cartridges . Calderon remained in side the car and heard male voices outside. Shortly
ther eaft er, Calderon heard Ramos say, “ C hill, chill ” in a loud and scared voice as he walked to
the front of the car and opened the driver ’ s s ide door

. Calderon looked up from her phone, saw

“ like a flash ” and heard “ a shot go off , ” and s aw “ two bodies , ” one “ big ger than the other, ” immediately behind Ramos . The two individuals “ took off running ” while Ramos fe ll to the ground , telling Calderon that he had been shot and asking her to call the police. Calderon called3 91 1, and the police and paramedics arrived s ho rtly thereafter. Ramos was transported to a hospital, where he died. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to Ramos ’ s back. During the investigation into the shooting, police searched Ramos ’ s phone and
determined that the person to who m Ramos had ar rang ed to sell the THC cartridges was Eli jah
Malone. Text messages betwe en Ramos and Malone , in which they discussed the sale of the cartridges, were admitted into evidence. The last text message between them was at 11:53 p.m.

on the night that Ramos was kil led. Approximately four minutes later, Calderon called 911.
Police executed a search warrant at the apartment where Malone lived. Inside his room , they
found “ five unopened Rove THC cartridges in [] rectangular boxes. ” Rove was the brand of
cartrid ges that Calderon testified Ramos had in his possession that night

. Police interviewed Malone ’ s then

- girlfriend , Dejza Zeigler , who told them that
Malone was with Re ginald Williams when she picked him up the day after the shooting. At trial, Zeigler tes tified that she had picked Malone up at the apartment where “ Reggie ’ s baby momma ”
lived. That woman was identified as Jayla Sifue ntes , who testified that W illiams and Malone

were “ chilling ” at her apartment the night of the sho oting and that they left her apart ment together at the same time, some time after 11:00 p.m., without telling her where they were going. Sifuentes testified that they returned to her apartment later that night, with Malone “ running through [the] door ” first and “ breathing heavily ” an d Will iams coming through the door shortly thereafter, also “ breathing heavy ” and looking “ shocked, too, like he ju st wasn ’ t there. ” She also
testified that Malone and Williams were holding THC cartridges when they returned to her apartment and that they told h er that they had robbed someone during a drug deal. Sifuentes

rec ounted that M alone and Williams s lept at her apartment that night and that Malone ’ s girlfriend picked him up the next day.4 Later during the investigation, the police arrested Willia m s and se arch ed the
residence where he lived

. During the search, officers discovered additional TH C cartridges that matched the description of those that Ramos had in his possession when he was shot

. Other
evidence admitted at trial included surveilla nce camera f ootage taken from an auto shop near the
location of the shooting tha t showed two men, matching the physical descr i ptions of Malone and Williams, walking in the direction of where the crime occurred and then , several m inutes later, running away in t he oppos ite direction ; a copy of the search history from Williams ’ s cell phone, which showed that on the day of the shooting, he had been searching for information on firearms that might have been used during the shooting ; 1 and a cop y of a news article fo u n d on
Wi lliams ’ s pho ne related to the shooti ng and other searches on his phone for an “ update on deadly shooting [ A ] ustin , ” made in the days immediatel y after the shooting, before Williams was
arrested.
At the conclusion of trial, the d i strict court charged the ju ry on the law related to
the o ffense of murder , including instruction s on the law of parties. The court ’ s charge tracked the allegations in the indictment, and t he jury found Williams guilty of murder as charged. Following a h e aring on punishment , at whi ch witnesses for both the State and the defense testified, the jury asses sed punishme nt at 25 years ’ imprisonment, and the district court sentenced Williams accordingly as noted above

.

1 The police were unable to locate or identify the actual firearm that was used to shoot Ramos.5 We have reviewed the record and cou nsel ’ s brief

. We agree w ith co unsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We g rant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.

____________________ __ ____________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: June 30, 2023
Do Not Publish