Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed May 27, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01481-CR

No. 05-14-01482-CR

BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-20826-T, F14-57522-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Evans

Brandon Deon Williams was convicted, following the adjudication of his guilt, of theft 

enhanced by two prior theft convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West 

Supp. 2014). He was also convicted of a new credit card abuse offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 32.31(b)(1)(A) (West 2011). In each case, the trial court assessed punishment at one 

year’s confinement in a state jail. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he 

concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements 

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the 

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 
-2-

S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief 

to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro 

se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying 

duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeals.

Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-14-

01482-CR incorrectly identifies the statute for the offense as “32.21 Penal Code.” Appellant was 

convicted of credit card abuse under section 32.31 of the Texas Penal Code. Accordingly, we 

modify the judgment to show the statute for the offense is “32.31 Penal Code.” See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

In cause no. 05-14-01481-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. In 

cause no. 05-14-01482-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

141481F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-14-01481-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-20826-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is 

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of May, 2015.
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-14-01482-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F14-57522-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “32.31 Penal Code.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered this May 27th, 2015.