Charles Robert Williams v. The State of TexasAppeal from 185th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted, Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 19, 2013. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00037-CR CHARLES ROBERT WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 9406948 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing in the trial court.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 64. The trial court granted the motion. After testing, on December 6, 2012, the trial court signed an order adopting findings that the test results were unfavorable to appellant and appellant failed to show that it is 1 This court affirmed appellant s murder conviction on direct appeal. See Williams v. State, 964 S.W.2d 747 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref d). reasonably probable that he would not have been convicted if these new results had been available at trial. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court certified appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Anders procedures apply in appeals from orders in post-conviction DNA proceedings. See Murphy v. State, 111 S.W .3d 846, 847 48 (Tex. App. Dallas 2003, no pet.). A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s order and findings after DNA testing. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Wise. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
