# In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00087

- CR

SAMUEL MOSES WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1424393

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

### 2 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a trial by jury, Samuel Mos es Williams was convicted of indecency with a child

by sexual contact and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. Williams appeals. 1



### Williams’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record

and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural

history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course o f the proceeding. Meeting the

requirements of Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal

. Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.

proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 9 1); High v. State

,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with

thi s Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On July14, 2015, c ounsel mailed to Williams a copy of the brief , the appellate record, and

the motion to withdraw

. 2 

### Williams was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se

response , and he requested an extension of time in which to do so. This Court granted Williams’

request for an extension of time and informed him that any pro se response was due on or before

October 21, 2015. To date, Williams has not filed a pro se response. 3

1 In companion causes numbered 06

- 15

- 00086

- CR, 06

- 15

- 00088

- CR, and 06

- 15

- 00089

- CR, Williams appeals three

other convictions of indecency with a child by sexual contact.

2 By a September 18, 2015, order, this Court ensured that Williams had sufficient access to the record.

3 Williams ’ last correspondence to the Court represented that he had retained counsel to assist him with the appeal.

However, this Court has received no notice from the allegedl y retained counsel.

### 3

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed

the appellate record , and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State

,

178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

W e affirm the tr ial court ’ s judgment. 4



### Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: November 18, 2015

Date Decided: November 19 , 2015

Do Not Publish

4 Si n ce w e a g r ee t h i s c a s e pr e s e n ts n o r e v e r s i b le e rror

, w e a l s o

, in a c c or d w i t h A nd ers

, gr a n t c ou ns e l ’ s r e q u est to

w i t h dr a w f

r o m f u r t h er r e pr es e n tati o n o f a pp ella n t i n t h is c a s e. A nd ers

, 38 6 U

. S. at 744

. No su b s t it u te c ou ns el w ill

b e a p po i n te d

. S h o u ld a pp ella n t w i s h to s e e k f u r t h er r e v i e w o f t h i s c a s e b y t h e T e x as C o u r t o f C r i m i n al A pp e a l s

,

a pp ella n t mus t ei t h er r etain a n att or n e y to f ile a p etiti o n f

o r d i s c r eti o n a r y r e v i e w o r a pp ella n t m u s t f ile a pr o s e p etiti o n

f o r d i s c r eti o n a r y r e v i e w

. A n y p etiti o n f o r d i s c r eti o n a r y r e v i e w m u s t b e f iled w i t h in t h ir t y d a y s f

r o m ei t h er t h e d ate

o f t h i s op i n i o n o r t h e d ate o n w h i c h t h e l a s t t i m e l y m o t i o n f o r r e h e ar i n g w as o v e r r u led b y t h is C o u r t. S ee T EX

. R

. A PP

. P

. 68

. 2

. A n y p etiti o n f o r d i s c r eti o n a r y r e v i e w m u s t b e f i led w i t h t h e cle r k o f t h e T e x as C o u r t o f C r i m i n al A pp e a l s

. S ee T EX

. R

. A PP

. P

. 6 8

. 3

. A n y p etiti o n f o r d i s c r eti o n a r y r e v i e w s

h o u ld c o m

p l y w i t h t h e r e q u ir e m

e n ts o f R u le 68 .4 o f

t h e T e x as R u les o f A

pp ellate P ro c e d u r e. S ee T EX

. R

. A PP

. P

. 6 8

. 4

.