Court Opinion

ID: 9385176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 07:22:25.265874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:00.360590
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                     EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                          EL PASO, TEXAS

    CHRISTOPHER BERNARD WILLIAMS,                             §               No. 08-22-00212-CR

                                     Appellant,               §                  Appeal from the

    v.                                                        §           264th Judicial District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                       §              of Bell County, Texas

                                     Appellee.                §                    (TC# 82604)

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

         A jury convicted Appellant Christopher Bernard Williams of family-violence assault by

strangulation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The trial court assessed punishment

at seven years’ confinement and entered a judgment of conviction in accordance with the jury’s

verdict. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

                                                         I.

         Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief that concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of an Anders brief by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and a demonstration of

1
 This case was transferred from our sister court in Austin (Third District), and we decide it in accordance with the
precedent of that court to the extent required by TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

       Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief

to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response

brief should he desire, and provided, as well, a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record

from this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (setting forth

duties of counsel); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant has not filed a motion to obtain the

record. And, to date, he has not filed a pro se response brief, nor requested an extension of time to

file a response.

       We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the trial record and

appellate counsel’s brief—and we agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably

meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner,

300 S.W.3d at 766; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Nickerson v. State, No. 08-22-00018-CR,

2022 WL 2866011, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 21, 2022, no pet.) (not designated for

publication).

                                                  II.

       As a final matter, we note the trial court certified Appellant’s right to appeal, but the

certification does not bear Appellant’s signature indicating he was informed by that court of his

right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification is defective and has not been corrected by Appellant’s

attorney or the trial court. To remedy this defect, this Court ORDERS Appellant’s attorney,

pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, to send Appellant a copy of this opinion and this Court’s

                                                  2
judgment, to notify Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and to

inform Appellant of the applicable deadlines. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; 68. Appellant’s attorney is

further ORDERED to comply with all requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22, 411 n.35. 2

         Otherwise, we determine that counsel has met the requirements for withdrawal. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318-20. No substitute counsel will be appointed. In the event

Appellant wishes 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 file a pro se petition for

discretionary review. To that end, any petition for discretionary review must comply with Rule

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Additionally, any petition for discretionary review

must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days from either the date of this opinion

or the date of this Court’s denial of the last timely filed motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P.

68.2; 68.3.

                                                  CONCLUSION

         We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence, and we grant appellate counsel’s motion

to withdraw.

                                                       GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

March 30, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

2
  The duty to send Appellant 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. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 411 n.33 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

                                                           3