Court Opinion

ID: 9404520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 07:11:03.796311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:14.837268
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00395-CR
                               __________________

                     RYAN SETH WILLETTE, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 ________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                       Liberty County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CR35241
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In August 2020, a grand jury indicted Appellant Ryan Seth Willette

(“Appellant” or “Willette”) on three counts of sexual assault of a child younger than

seventeen years of age, a second degree felony.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33,

22.011(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). After waiving his right to a jury trial, Willette pleaded

guilty to count one, and the State agreed to dismiss the other two counts. After a

      1
       The indictment reflects that the alleged victim for all three counts was the
same child.
                                        1
hearing on punishment, on August 4, 2022, the court placed Willette on deferred

adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years and assessed a fine of

$10,000.

      On September 19, 2022, the State filed a Motion to Revoke, alleging that

Willette had violated a term of his community supervision by testing positive for

methamphetamines on or about September 6, 2022. In a hearing on November 9,

2022, Willette pleaded “true” to the alleged violations of the terms and conditions

of his community supervision. A “Drug and/or Alcohol Admission Form” was

admitted into evidence wherein Willette admitted he smoked “meth” on September

6, 2022. After hearing testimony, the trial court found the allegations “true,” revoked

Willette’s community supervision, and adjudicated Willette guilty of sexual assault

of a child. The court heard testimony on punishment and assessed punishment at

confinement for seven years and no fine. In its Certification of Defendant’s Right of

Appeal, the trial court stated that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has

NO right of appeal[.]” The trial court later signed a Certification of Defendant’s

Right of Appeal that stated this “is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given

permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” Willette timely

appealed.

      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has diligently reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the

                                          2
record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Appellant’s

court-appointed attorney also filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted extensions of time for Willette to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Willette.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings 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 and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). 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.2

      2
         Willette may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         3
      AFFIRMED.

                                                _________________________
                                                    LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on June 20, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

                                       4