Court Opinion

ID: 9369937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 08:20:38.127368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.159750
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             ________________
                              NO. 09-22-00025-CR
                             ________________

              TERRANCE TYVEONE WILLIAMS, Appellant

                                        V.

                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 88th District Court
                          Hardin County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 24315
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an open plea, Appellant Terrance Tyveone Williams pled guilty to the first-

degree felony offense of felony murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(3).

Williams elected to have the jury assess punishment, and they assessed fifty-two

years of confinement.

      Williams’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

                                        1
Crim. App. 1978). After Williams’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension

of time for Williams to file a pro se response. Williams filed a pro se brief in which

he complains that: (1) the trial court erred by allowing his “involuntary” video

recorded confession to be used against him; (2) the trial court erred by allowing an

“all white” jury to sentence him; and (3) his counsel was ineffective.

      The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and a later-filed pro se response, an appellate court has two

choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It

may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining

that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. . . . Or, it may determine

that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that

new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s pro se brief, and we have found no reversible

error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to

                                           2
re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                            ________________________________
                                                   W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                       Chief Justice

Submitted on January 25, 2023
Opinion Delivered February 8, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

      1Williams  may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                        3