Brandon Williams v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed May 27, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01481-CR
No. 05-14-01482-CR
BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-20826-T, F14-57522-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Evans
Brandon Deon Williams was convicted, following the adjudication of his guilt, of theft
enhanced by two prior theft convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West
Supp. 2014). He was also convicted of a new credit card abuse offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 32.31(b)(1)(A) (West 2011). In each case, the trial court assessed punishment at one
year’s confinement in a state jail. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he
concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the
record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief
to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro
se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying
duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree
the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-14-
01482-CR incorrectly identifies the statute for the offense as “32.21 Penal Code.” Appellant was
convicted of credit card abuse under section 32.31 of the Texas Penal Code. Accordingly, we
modify the judgment to show the statute for the offense is “32.31 Penal Code.” See TEX. R. APP.
P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813
S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
In cause no. 05-14-01481-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. In
cause no. 05-14-01482-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.
/David Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
141481F.U05
-2-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F12-20826-T).
No. 05-14-01481-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans,
Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 27th day of May, 2015.
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BRANDON DEON WILLIAMS, Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F14-57522-T).
No. 05-14-01482-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans,
Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “32.31 Penal Code.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this May 27th, 2015.
-4-