1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00178-CR 

__________________

CARL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-23005 

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carl Williams appeals from his conviction for possessing a deadly 

weapon in a penal institution.1 Williams’ conviction is based on a plea 

agreement he made with the State, which the trial court relied on when 

it sentenced Williams to serve a ten-year sentence. Under the terms of 

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.10 (Deadly Weapon in a Penal 

Institution). 
2

Williams’ agreement, the trial court suspended Williams’ sentence and 

placed him on community-supervision (probation) for five years. 

Twenty-one months later, the State moved to revoke the trial 

court’s community-supervision order, alleging that Williams had violated

six of the conditions required of him by the order. The State asked that 

the trial court conduct a hearing and determine whether Williams’

probation should be revoked. In May 2022, which is when the trial court 

heard the motion, Williams pleaded “true” to having violated six specific 

conditions that were required of him by his community-service order.

The trial court revoked the community-supervision order and 

signed a judgment. However, the trial court didn’t require Williams to 

complete the ten-year sentence that it had imposed when it originally 

pronounced Williams’ sentence. Instead, the court advised Williams that 

the court was “going to set your punishment at five years[’] confinement 

in the penitentiary with credit for any time served.” And following the 

hearing, the trial court signed a Judgment Revoking Community 

Supervision, which reflects that the trial court reformed Williams’ 

sentence by reducing his punishment from ten years in prison to five.
3

After the trial court signed the reformed judgment, Williams

appealed. Williams’ court-appointed attorney discharged his 

responsibilities to Williams by filing an Anders brief.2 Williams’ attorney

represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in 

Williams’ appeals. The brief the attorney filed contains a professional 

evaluation of the record and explains why, under the record in Williams’ 

case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.3

Williams’ attorney represented that he sent Williams a copy of the briefs, 

and he explained to Williams how he could arrange to request a copy of 

the appellate record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth 

Court of Appeals notified Williams, by letter, that he could file a pro se 

brief or response with the court on or before May 15, 2023. Williams, 

however, failed to respond. 

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to 

independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney 

assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that 

2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

3See id. 
4

would support the appeal.4 After reviewing the record, we agree with 

counsel’s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal. 

Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.5 For that reason, we need not 

require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.6

The trial court’s judgment in Trial Court Cause Number 15-23005 is 

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2023

Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023

Do Not Publish 

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

4Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 

744).

5See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion 

that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record 

for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

6See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

Williams may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.