Willie Woodrow Ball v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00295-CR Willie Woodrow Ball, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-10-301724, HONORABLE MIKE LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Willie Woodrow Ball, was charged with one count of aggravated assault by threat with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2011). Ball waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial court found Ball guilty, and after he pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph, sentenced Ball to five years imprisonment with a deadly-weapon finding. See id. §§ 12.42(b), .32 (West 2011). Ball 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). Ball 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. ____________________________________ Diane M. Henson, Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson Affirmed Filed: December 14, 2011 Do Not Publish 2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.
