Samuel Moses Williams v. State
06-15-00087-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 19, 2015Background
- Samuel Moses Williams was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by sexual contact and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- Counsel on appeal concluded there were no arguable issues, filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw.
- The appellate brief summarized the procedural history and the trial evidence and explained why no appealable issues existed.
- The court mailed Williams the brief, record, and motion to withdraw; Williams requested and received an extension but filed no pro se response.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw; no substitute counsel was appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arguable appellate issues exist | Williams (through counsel) did not advance specific issues; counsel sought leave to withdraw under Anders | State urged affirmance | Court found no arguable issues; appeal is frivolous and affirmed conviction |
| Whether counsel properly complied with Anders procedures | Counsel submitted an Anders brief analyzing the record and moved to withdraw | Williams had opportunity to file pro se response and sought an extension but filed none | Court concluded Anders compliance was sufficient and granted withdrawal |
| Whether appellant received adequate access to the record | Williams requested access and extension; court ensured access | State maintained access was adequate | Court confirmed Williams had sufficient access and proceeded without pro se filing |
| Availability of further review | Williams could seek discretionary review | State did not oppose standard appellate remedies | Court explained procedure and deadline for petition for discretionary review; no substitute counsel appointed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw because appeal is frivolous)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explains Texas application of Anders procedures)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discusses appellate counsel duties when asserting frivolous appeal)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (addresses appellate counsel withdrawal standards)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (authorizes independent appellate review when counsel files an Anders brief)