Morris Devearl Williams v. The State of TexasAppeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00209-CR MORRIS DEVEARL WILLIAMS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B17173-0703, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding October 28, 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Morris Devearl Williams, appellant, was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a state jail felony and, after pleading nolo contendere, was placed on deferred adjudication for two years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication of his guilt after appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion, appellant pled true to several of the allegations. The trial court then adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to two years confinement in a state jail facility, however it suspended the sentence and placed appellant on five years community supervision. The State, then, filed a motion to revoke appellant s community supervision to which appellant pled true to failing to complete community service hours, and paying fines, restitution, court costs and fees. The trial court granted the motion to revoke and assessed two years in a state jail facility. Appellant s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to appeal pro se. By letter, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by October 17, 2013, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been received. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included the original plea proceedings, the sufficiency of the evidence to revoke probation, and the propriety of extending appellant s probation on a prior motion to adjudicate probation. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concurred with counsel s conclusions. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 3
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.
