Eric James Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00195-CR NO. 09-09-00196-CR NO. 09-09-00197-CR ____________________ ERIC JAMES WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. B-090042-R, B-090045-R, and B-090048-R _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Eric James Williams entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to three separate indictments for aggravated robbery. See T EX. P EN. C ODE A NN. ยง 29.03(a)(3) (Vernon 2003). In each case, the trial court convicted Williams and assessed punishment at thirty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. On appeal, Williams s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 3, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 7, 2010 Opinion Delivered April 21, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
