Ryan Seth Willette v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00395-CR
__________________
RYAN SETH WILLETTE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 75th District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR35241
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In August 2020, a grand jury indicted Appellant Ryan Seth Willette
(“Appellant” or “Willette”) on three counts of sexual assault of a child younger than
seventeen years of age, a second degree felony.1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33,
22.011(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). After waiving his right to a jury trial, Willette pleaded
guilty to count one, and the State agreed to dismiss the other two counts. After a
1
The indictment reflects that the alleged victim for all three counts was the
same child.
1
hearing on punishment, on August 4, 2022, the court placed Willette on deferred
adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years and assessed a fine of
$10,000.
On September 19, 2022, the State filed a Motion to Revoke, alleging that
Willette had violated a term of his community supervision by testing positive for
methamphetamines on or about September 6, 2022. In a hearing on November 9,
2022, Willette pleaded “true” to the alleged violations of the terms and conditions
of his community supervision. A “Drug and/or Alcohol Admission Form” was
admitted into evidence wherein Willette admitted he smoked “meth” on September
6, 2022. After hearing testimony, the trial court found the allegations “true,” revoked
Willette’s community supervision, and adjudicated Willette guilty of sexual assault
of a child. The court heard testimony on punishment and assessed punishment at
confinement for seven years and no fine. In its Certification of Defendant’s Right of
Appeal, the trial court stated that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has
NO right of appeal[.]” The trial court later signed a Certification of Defendant’s
Right of Appeal that stated this “is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given
permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” Willette timely
appealed.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has diligently reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the
2
record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Appellant’s
court-appointed attorney also filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted extensions of time for Willette to file a pro se brief, and we received no
response from Willette.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed
the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably
support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error
but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2
2
Willette may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on June 20, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
4