In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00045-CR

DEWAYNE NEAL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013F00410

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dewayne Neal Williams appeals his conviction for assault (family violence) by 

strangulation, enhanced by one prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42, 

22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2013). Williams was sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment, plus 

thirty days’ confinement for contempt, to run concurrently. Williams was represented by 

different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.

Williams’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the 

trial court proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the 

evidence elicited during the course of the proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders, 

counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. 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. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Williams on May 6, 2014, informing Williams of 

his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. Counsel also filed a motion with this 

Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Williams with a form to 

request pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 911, at **14–15 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). Williams has neither filed nor 

requested an extension of time in which to file a pro se response. Williams has not requested pro 

se access to the appellate record. 
3

When counsel files an Anders brief, we are to determine whether the appeal is without 

merit. 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). In such a case, the appeal 

must be either dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: July 15, 2014

Date Decided: August 20, 2014

Do Not Publish

 1

Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw from further representation of Williams in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will 

be appointed. Should Williams wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he

must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of 

this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled 

by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.