John T. Williams v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-10-00015-CR ________________________ JOHN T. WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ _________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-05422 _____________________________________________________________ ________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After a plea bargain agreement, appellant John T. Williams pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Williams on community supervision for two years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Williams s unadjudicated community supervision. Williams pled true to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Williams had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Williams 1 guilty of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Williams s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. 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 March 18, 2010, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on August 5, 2010 Opinion Delivered August 18, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. 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.
