Todd Loren Williamson v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued June 22, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-09-00571-CR
NO. 01-09-00572-CR
____________
TODD LOREN WILLIAMSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1122219 and 1122220
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a joint trial on two indictments, a jury found appellant, Todd
Loren Williamson, guilty in each case of the offense of indecency with a child. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a) (Vernon Supp. 2011). The trial court assessed
punishment at confinement for 15 years in one cause1 and confinement for 12 years
in the other,2 with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant appealed from the
judgment in each cause.
Appellant’s appointed counsel in both appeals has filed a motion to
withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible
error and therefore the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
trial court’s judgment in each appeal.
An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous
appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an
appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is
to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to
assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the
request to withdraw is well-founded. Id.
We may not grant the motion to withdraw until:
1
Trial court cause number 1122219 is appellate cause number 01-09-00571-CR.
2
Trial court cause number 1122220 is appellate cause number 01-09-00572-CR.
(1) the attorney has sent a copy of his Anders brief to his client
along with a letter explaining that the defendant has the right to
file a pro se response within 30 days, and he has ensured that
his client has, at some point, been informed of his right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review;
(2) the attorney has informed us that he has performed the above
duties;
(3) the defendant has had time in which to file a pro se response;
and
(4) we have reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and any pro se
response.
See id. at 408–09. If we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we will grant the
attorney’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Garner v.
State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If we conclude that arguable
grounds for appeal exist, we will grant the motion to withdraw, abate the case, and
remand it to the trial court to appoint new counsel to file a brief on the merits. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Here, counsel’s brief reflects that she delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a
response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and
appellant has not filed a pro se response. See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting 30-day
period to file response).
Counsel indicates that she has reviewed the record and that she is unable to
advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87
3
S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review,
and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767 (explaining that frivolity is determined by
considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d
at 826–27 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after
full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193
S.W.3d at 155. Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks
arguable merit, we are not required to do so. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767. An
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw3 and affirm the trial court’s
judgment. Attorney Deborah Summers must immediately send the notice required
3
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, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
4
by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the
Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Sharp.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
5