Chad Derric Williams v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                   NO. 12-20-00260-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    CHAD DERRIC WILLIAMS,                           §      APPEAL FROM THE 294TH
    APPELLANT
    V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE                                        §      VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    Chad Derric Williams appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication
    community supervision.     Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
     (1967) and Gainous v. State, 
    436 S.W.2d 137
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault of a child and pleaded “guilty.”
    The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for
    ten years.
    Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
    alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions thereof. Specifically, the State
    contended that Appellant violated his community supervision by smoking marijuana, going to a
    pornographic drive-in and adult bookstore in Tyler, Texas on two separate occasions, and
    possessing a pornographic DVD and watching it on two separate occasions. A hearing was
    conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations.
    In support of its motion, the State elicited testimony from Van Zandt County Probation
    Officer Stefani Clark and Polygraph Examiner James Gallagher.           Clark testified that she
    supervised Appellant during his community supervision and explained how the admissions
    Appellant made during the interview before his polygraph examination demonstrated that he
    violated the conditions of his community supervision. Thereafter, Appellant questioned Clark
    extensively about the procedure for requesting, as well as the general fairness of, conducting a
    polygraph examination as part of Appellant’s community supervision.
    Gallagher testified generally about the typical procedure for a test conducted prior to a
    polygraph exam, as well as about the examination itself and the post-test interview. Gallagher
    also testified that Appellant voluntarily took the examination and made statements during his
    pre-test interview, which included his admitting to (1) using marijuana on December 17, 2019,
    (2) owning a pornographic DVD, which he viewed on two occasions during the term of his
    community supervision, and (3) visiting a pornographic drive-in movie/adult bookstore in Tyler,
    Texas on two occasions during the term of his community supervision where he viewed
    pornographic movies.
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
    and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. At a subsequent
    hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of
    sexual assault of a child, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight years. This appeal
    followed.
    ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
    Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
    State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
    opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
    can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
    compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
     (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
    Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
    the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
    appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
    1
    In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
    notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
    and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 2
    CONCLUSION
    As required by Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
    counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
    Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to
    withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.
    As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
    days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
    him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
    Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d at
    411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
    Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
    discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
    petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this
    opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
    P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
    Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with
    the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d at
    408 n.22.
    Opinion delivered November 23, 2021.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has
    expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
    3
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    NOVEMBER 23, 2021
    NO. 12-20-00260-CR
    CHAD DERRIC WILLIAMS,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    Appeal from the 294th District Court
    of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16-00288)
    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
    and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
    judgment.
    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
    the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
    for observance.
    By per curiam opinion.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.