Ivery Gene Williams, Appellant v. The State of Texas, State

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Ivery Gene Williams, Appellant v. The State of Texas, State

NO. 02–14–00305–CR, NO. 02–14–00306–CR, NO. 02–14–00307–CR, NO. 02–14–00308–CR

Decided: June 25, 2015



Appellant Ivery Gene Williams appeals judgments adjudicating him guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentencing him to seven years' confinement.

Williams's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion.   Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous.   Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).   This court informed Williams that he could file a pro se response to the Anders brief, but he did not do so.   The State did not submit a brief.

Once an appellant's court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.   See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991);  Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).   Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw.   See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief.   We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit;  we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.Crim.App.2005);  see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).   Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgments.


1.   See Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.