Ronny Lee Williams v. State, 12-15-00139-CR

Ronny Lee Williams was tried by jury on four felonies from events of Sept. 11, 2013: aggravated robbery (victim 65+), burglary of a habitation, assault on a public servant, and possession of PCP (10.11 g).
Facts: Williams (appearing intoxicated, wearing white shorts) was observed inside Morgan Bright’s home, assaulted Bright (who lost teeth), fled to a nearby playhouse/treehouse, resisted arrest, was tasered multiple times, and punched an officer. Officers recovered a bottle later shown to contain PCP.
Two psychiatric experts examined Williams; both concluded he was not legally insane at the time and that PCP intoxication (voluntary) played a role. Williams did not testify.
Jury convicted on all counts and assessed consecutive terms: possession 20 yrs; aggravated robbery 70 yrs; assault on public servant 10 yrs; burglary 8 yrs.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous appellate issues after reviewing record; outlined two potential issues (sufficiency of evidence; ineffective assistance) and explained why each lacks merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of evidence supporting convictions	State: eyewitness testimony, physical injuries, officer testimony, and stipulated lab report established each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Williams: (potential) challenges to sufficiency — e.g., identity, weight of evidence, or elements not met	Appellate counsel: evidence legally sufficient; no non-frivolous sufficiency argument exists
Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial	State: trial counsel conducted reasonable investigation, used experts, cross-examined witnesses, and made strategic choices to mitigate punishment	Williams: (potential) counsel failed to object, failed to present mitigating evidence, or otherwise performed deficiently	Appellate counsel: record demonstrates plausible strategic bases; no showing under Strickland that outcome would differ — issue frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel who concludes an appeal is frivolous)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency in Texas)
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (weight and sufficiency principles)
McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (presumption of counsel effectiveness; review of totality of representation)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural requirements when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders)
Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge/sufficiency framing)