William Austin Young v. The State of Texas Appeal from 46th District Court of Wilbarger County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00189-CR WILLIAM AUSTIN YOUNG, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 46th District Court Wilbarger County, Texas Trial Court No. 12,377, Honorable Dan Mike Bird, Presiding November 15, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER, and YARBROUGH, JJ. Before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, in March 2019, Appellant, William Austin Young, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years for burglary of a habitation. In June 2022, the State moved to proceed with adjudication for violations of certain conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard testimony on the alleged violations and subsequently ruled that Appellant had violated 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). some conditions, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the charged offense, and sentenced him to eighteen years’ confinement. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). By the Anders brief, counsel presents a thorough evaluation of the record and concedes that reversible error is not present. He acknowledges that Appellant’s pleas of 2 true standing alone were sufficient for the trial court to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.2 Alex L. Yarbrough Justice Do not publish. 2 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22, 411 n.35. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33 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.
