Court Opinion

ID: 3078205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:01.898608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:06:26.713543
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-12-00460-CR
                          ____________________

   MAURICE A. WILLIAMS A/K/A MAURICE ANTONIO WILLIAMS,
                         Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________         ______________

                   On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 10-09440
________________________________________________________         _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Maurice A. Williams a/k/a Maurice

Antonio Williams pleaded guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence

sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed

Williams on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed

a motion to revoke Williams’s unadjudicated community supervision. Williams

pleaded “true” to violating one condition of his community supervision. The trial

                                       1
court found that Williams violated his community supervision, found Williams

guilty of robbery, and sentenced Williams to twelve years in prison.

      Williams’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes Williams’s appeal is frivolous.

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

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 8, 2012, we

granted an extension of time for Williams to file a pro se brief. We received no

response from Williams. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.

We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and

we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

            AFFIRMED.

                                             ________________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice

Submitted on February 6, 2013
Opinion Delivered February 20, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

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

                                         2