AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 30, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00426-CR WILLIAM MICHAEL CASON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1914112-Q MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Schenck William Michael Cason appeals his co nviction for the second-degree felony of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Because all issues are settl ed in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 47.4.
B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged with having cause d bodily injury to the complainant by shooting him with a firearm. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and judicially confessed to having committed th e offense. Appellant elected to have the trial court judge assess punishment.–2– Appellant called himself, his grandfather though marriage, and his father, mother, sister and aunt to testify. Appe llant’s witnesses gene rally testified that appellant’s commission of the offense was not in keeping with his general character. The State called the complainan t and the complainant’s moth er to testify as to the injuries the complainant suffered as a resu lt of the shooting and as to how the event has impacted their lives. Th e State also introduced into evidence surveillance video from the complainant’s home capturing the commission of the offense after appellant’s brother and the complainant enga ged in a fist fight and showing appellant shoot the complainant in the b ack as he was walking away, 1 and an Instagram posting the following day in which appellant and his brother laugh and make light of the shooting. After both sides rested and cl osed, and after hearing closing arguments, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ confinement. The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal and appe llant timely filed his notice of appeal.
D ISCUSSION Appellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw stating that she diligently reviewed the entire appellate record and that, in her opinion, there are no meritorious issues on appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation show ing why there are no non-frivolous grounds

1 The bullet pierced the complainant’s small intestin e and liver after entering through the left side of his back.–3– for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, an appeal from the judgment and sentence is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no revers ible error and, in her opinion, there are no grounds upon which an appeal can be pr edicated. Counsel specifically noted, from her review of the following, that she found no issues presented for review: (1) the sufficiency of the indictment, 2 (2) pretrial hearing, 3 (3) voir dire and opening statements, 4 (4) sufficiency of the evidence, 5 and (5) the voluntariness of the plea. 6 In addition, counsel reviewed the perform ance of trial counsel and concluded the record does not reflect counsel failed to interpose a prope r objection that might have preserved reversible error and states nothi ng in the record suggests the punishment assessed is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

2 The indictment contained all elements of the offe nse and conferred jurisdiction on the trial court. 3 No pretrial motions were filed and thus there are no rulings on any pretrial motion to support an appeal. 4 Because appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense, there was no voir dire conducted in the case and no opening statements were made, thus, voi r dire and opening statements are not subjects for complaint on appeal. 5 Appellant executed a written sworn judicial confess ion in which he stated that he committed each element of the offence as alleged in the indictment. 6 Appellant acknowledged that he read and understood every document he signed including the court’s written admonishments regarding his constitutional and stat utory rights and orally stat ed on the record that he was voluntarily waiving those rights and voluntarily entering his plea of guilt.–4– Counsel delivered a copy of the brie f to appellant, a nd by letter dated November 12, 2020, we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response by January 4, 2021. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (T ex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We advised appellant that failu re to file a pro se response by that date would result in the case being submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a
response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all proceedings to determine whet her the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Having reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, we find nothing that would arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim . App. 2005) (explaining appe llate court’s duty in Anders cases). Accordingly, we affi rm the trial court’s judgment. In accordance with Anders , counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from the

case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appe al is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to a dvise appellant of–5– his right to pursue a petition for review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.
C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

D O N OT P UBLISH T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
200426F.U05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WILLIAM MICHAEL CASON, Appellant
No. 05-20-00426-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1914112-Q. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Reichek and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 30th day of June, 2021.