Willie Dan Majors III v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00549-CR Willie Dan Majors III, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 53011, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION In April 2002, the district court deferred adjudication after appellant Willie Dan Majors III pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a weapon on a licensed premises. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 46.02 (West 2003). In August 2003, the court adjudicated Majors guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison and a $490 fine. After Majors completed boot camp, he was placed on community supervision. In August 2004, the court revoked supervision and imposed sentence after Majors admitted violating the conditions of his supervision. Majors’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Majors received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The order revoking community supervision is affirmed. __________________________________________ Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices Smith, Puryear and Pemberton Affirmed Filed: March 10, 2005 Do Not Publish 2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.