Court Opinion

ID: 4470511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-08 23:21:02.887051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:08.122992
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-19-00265-CR
                              __________________

                      BRONSON WILLIAMS, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 13-17383
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Bronson Williams pleaded

guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Williams on community

supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed

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

pleaded “true” to eight violations of the terms of his community supervision. The

                                         1
trial court found that Williams had violated the conditions of his community

supervision, found Williams guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment

at fifty years of confinement.

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

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

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

1978). On September 10, 2019, we granted an extension of time for Williams to file

a pro se brief. We received no response from Williams. We have reviewed the

appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues

support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to 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.

                                              ______________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                         Chief Justice

Submitted on December 17, 2019
Opinion Delivered January 8, 2020
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
      1
        Williams may challenge our opinion in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2