Marcus Dewayne Williams v. State ( 2009 )

Opinion issued June 11, 2009

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas  

---

NO. 01-08-00354-CR

NO. 01-08-00355-CR

____________

MARCUS DEWAYNE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1143170 & 1105615

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Marcus Dewayne Williams, guilty of committing the offense of aggravated assault ⁽¹⁾ against two complainants ⁽²⁾ and, after finding true the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs that appellant had two prior felony convictions, assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty-five years for each offense, to run concurrently.

Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could "conceivably persuade the court." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In our review, we consider appellant's pro se response, if any, to his counsel's Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).   

Here, appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in seven issues ⁽³⁾ that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in instructing the jury to find true the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs, his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, and his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. ⁽⁴⁾ See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).

Terry Jennings

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2008).

2.

Linda Collins (Trial Cause No. 1143170; Appellate Cause No. 01-08-00354-CR) and Ella McFarland (Trial Cause No. 1105615; Appellate Cause No. 01-08-00355-CR).

3. In his original pro se response, appellant raised four issues; however, appellant subsequently supplemented his response with three additional issues. In the interest of justice, we have reviewed appellant's additional issues. Tex. R. App. P. 38.7; see Villareal v. State, 267 S.W.3d 204, 207 & n.12 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.).

4.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.3d 837, 842 n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).