Court Opinion

ID: 9409507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 15:08:46.227311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:50.994318
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00364-CR

                                        Kenneth WILLIAMS,
                                             Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022CR4751
                           Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Sitting:          Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2023

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           Following a jury trial, Kenneth Williams was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon (repeater) and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment on each count,

running concurrently. Williams timely filed a notice of appeal. His court-appointed appellate

counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel’s brief explains why no

arguable points of error exist for review and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit.

See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel’s brief satisfies
                                                                                                        04-22-00364-CR

the requirements of Anders. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Williams was

provided with a copy of the Anders brief and was informed of his right to review the record and

file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Williams

obtained a copy of the appellate record and filed a pro se brief.

         We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Williams’s pro se brief, and the appellate record.

We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The trial court’s judgments

are affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,

85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

                                                            Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1
 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Williams would like to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the
date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in 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.

                                                          -2-