Kim Kaylean Williams v. State
Kim Kaylean Williams v. State
Opinion
OPINION
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief met 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). After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agreed that the appeal is frivolous, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction.
Appellant filed a pro se motion for rehearing urging that she was not given a fair opportunity to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. We granted the motion for rehearing, withdrew our opinion and judgment, and ordered the district clerk to make the record available to appellant. Appellant has now filed her pro se brief.
In her pro se brief, appellant urges that she was not guilty of the charged offense, that she did not knowingly or voluntarily plead guilty, and that her attorney did not render effective assistance. The facts on which appellant relies to support these contentions are not in the record. In any case, issues relating to the original guilty plea proceeding should have been raised in an appeal from the order deferring adjudication. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Because we remain satisfied that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, we again affirm the judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: June 13, 2002
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.