In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00136-CR 

No. 07-22-00137-CR 

 

VINSON DARNELL WILLIAMS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Donley County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 3989, 3990, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

January 23, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER 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 child 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 adjudicate 

Appellant’s guilt alleging that he had violated numerous conditions of his community 

supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas of “not true” to 

all allegations. After hearing testimony from the State’s witnesses and Appellant, the trial 

court adjudicated him guilty of the original offenses and imposed punishment as follows:

Cause number 3989 sexual assault of a child, a second degree 

felony; TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(1), 

(c)(1), (f)

twenty years confinement

Cause number 3990 aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first 

degree felony; TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 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 her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the records, and in her opinion, they reflect no potentially 

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re 

Schulman, 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 consecutively.

Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the records support 

that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

Counsel has demonstrated that she has complied with the requirements of Anders and 

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 Court 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 the State did not favor us with a brief.

We too have independently examined the records to determine whether there are 

any non-frivolous issues which might support these appeals. 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 

409; 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 records and counsel’s brief, we agree that there is no plausible basis for 

reversal of Appellant’s convictions. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgments 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 Certification 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 judgments together 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 Court’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.