Dewayne Neal Williams v. The State of Texas Appeal from 5th District Court of Cass County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00045-CR DEWAYNE NEAL WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013F00410 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Dewayne Neal Williams appeals his conviction for assault (family violence) by strangulation, enhanced by one prior felony conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยงยง 12.42, 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2013). Williams was sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment, plus thirty days confinement for contempt, to run concurrently. Williams was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal. Williams attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the trial court proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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 mailed a copy of the brief to Williams on May 6, 2014, informing Williams of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Williams with a form to request pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 911, at **14 15 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). Williams has neither filed nor requested an extension of time in which to file a pro se response. Williams has not requested pro se access to the appellate record. 2 When counsel files an Anders brief, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the appellate record, 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 such a case, the appeal must be either dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: July 15, 2014 August 20, 2014 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 Williams in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Williams wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he 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 or for en banc reconsideration 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. 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.