## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00136 - CR No. 07 - 22 - 00137 - CR VINSON DARNELL WILLIAMS , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Donley County, Texas Trial Court No s . 3989, 3990 , Honorable Stuart Messer , Presiding



### January 23 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKE R and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California. 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, in July 2021, Appellant, Vinson Darnell Williams, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for eight years for sexual assault of a ch ild in cause number 3989 . In cause number 3990, he was placed on deferred adjudication for eight years for aggravated sexual assault of

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).2

a child and assessed an $8,000 fine. 2 Within three months, the State moved to a djudicate Appellant’s guilt alleging that he had violated numerous conditions of his community supervision. A t a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas of “not true” to all allegations. Af ter hearing testimony from the State’s witnesses a nd Appellant , the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the original offenses and imposed punishment as follows:
Cause n umber 3989 s exual assault of a child , a second degree felony; T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.011( a )( 1 ) , (c) (1) , (f) t wenty years confinement
Cause number 3990 a ggravated sexual assault of a child, a first degree felony; T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.021( a ) (1 ) (B) , (2)(B), ( e ) sixty years confinement and a fine of $8,000
The sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
In support of h er motion to withdraw, counsel certifies s he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record s , and in h er opinion, they reflect no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744

– 4 5 ; In re Sc hulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Her review confirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Appellant guilty of the original offenses, revoking his community supervision, and ordering his sentences to run consecuti vely. Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record s support that conclusion. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that s he has complied with the requirements of Anders an d In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. By

2 Other counts in each cause were dismissed as part of the agreed punishment recommendations

.3

letter, this C ourt granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response and t he State did not favor us with a brief

. We too have in dependently examined the record s to determine whether there are any non - frivolous issues which might support the se appeal s . See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 4 09; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record s and counsel’s brief, we agree that there is no plausible basis for
rev ersal of Appellant’s conviction s . See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. C ONCLUSION The trial court’s judgment s are affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 3 Alex L. Yarbrough Justice Do not publish.

3 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certific ation of Defendant’s Right of Appeal , counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment s toge ther with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22, 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this C ourt’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33

.