Christopher Leotis Williams v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00018-CR

CHRISTOPHER LEOTIS WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 28526

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION

As a special term of his community supervision imposed in 2019, Christopher Leotis Williams was “required to participate in a drug or alcohol abuse continuum of care treatment plan . . . [and] abid[e] by all rules and regulations of said treatment plan until discharge by the staff of the continuum of care program.”1 The State later moved to revoke Williams’s community supervision on the ground that he violated this term and condition by being discharged for failing to follow the rules of the continuum of care program. Williams pled true to the State’s allegation and, after an evidentiary hearing, had his community supervision revoked and was sentenced to eight years’ confinement. Williams appeals.

Williams’s attorney has filed a brief reciting that he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, he has met the requirements of Anders v. California. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On May 18, 2021, counsel mailed to Williams copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Williams was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated May 18, this Court informed Williams that any pro se response was due on or before June 17. On June 30, this Court further informed Williams that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on July 21. We received neither a pro se response from Williams nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: July 21, 2021

Date Decided: July 30, 2021

Do Not Publish