Toronto Clayvernon Williams v. the State of Texas
11-19-00184-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Appellant Toronto Clayvernon Williams was convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention (state jail felony) and sentenced to 16 months in a state jail facility and a $5,000 fine.
- Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw with an Anders-style brief, provided records to Williams, and notified him of his rights to respond and to seek discretionary review.
- Williams filed a pro se response primarily complaining about the charging instrument, though the record shows he was indicted.
- The court of appeals conducted an independent review under Anders/Schulman procedures and concluded no arguable grounds for appeal existed.
- The court identified a nonreversible error: the trial court assessed a $25 Time Payment Fee prematurely. Pursuant to Dulin, the fee was struck from the judgment and bill of costs without prejudice to later assessment after the appellate mandate.
- The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the conviction as modified; Williams retains the right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arguable grounds support the appeal | Williams raised defects concerning the complaint/information | State maintained no reversible error; counsel complied with Anders | Appeal found wholly frivolous; no reversible error; affirm as modified |
| Whether the charging instrument was defective | Williams argued problems with the complaint/information | Record shows prosecution by indictment | Indictment controlled; complaint/information objections did not provide reversible error |
| Whether the $25 Time Payment Fee was properly assessed | Williams challenged the fee as improper | Trial court had included the fee in court costs | Fee struck as prematurely assessed under Dulin; judgment and bill of costs modified to delete it |
| Whether counsel properly moved to withdraw under Anders | Williams responded pro se but counsel followed required procedures | Counsel complied with Anders/Schulman/Kelly/Stafford requirements | Motion to withdraw granted; appellate court reviewed record independently |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for court‑appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Texas guidance on Anders procedure)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (court of appeals duties when appointed counsel files Anders brief)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural authority referenced for counsel withdrawal)
- Dulin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (time‑payment fee cannot be assessed prematurely)
- Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (judgment should be modified to remove improperly assessed fees)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for remand vs affirmance when dealing with Anders issues)