Ashley Renee Williams v. State, No. 06-15-00199-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 18, 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Ashley Renee Williams v. State, No. 06-15-00199-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 18, 2016). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ashley Renee Williams
v.
State
06-15-00199-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 18, 2016.
Unpublished opinion
Published
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00199-CR

ASHLEY RENEE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30,558

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ashley Renee Williams appeals her conviction for intentional bodily injury to a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(f) (West Supp. 2015). Williams was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Williams was represented by retained counsel at trial and a different appointed attorney on appeal.

William’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel provided Williams with a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Williams of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. William’s pro se response, if any, was due on or before March 11, 2016. Williams has not filed a pro se response, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[1]

Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: April 7, 2016 Date Decided: May 18, 2016 Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.