Franchesa Ichelle Williams v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 2008
Docket14-08-00675-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Franchesa Ichelle Williams v. State (Franchesa Ichelle Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Franchesa Ichelle Williams v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13, 2008

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-08-00675-CR

FRANCHESA ICHELLE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

 Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1084329

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of Aguilty@ to the offense of credit/debit card abuse.  The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt.  Appellant entered a plea of Atrue@ to the State=s allegations.  The trial court found the State=s allegations to be true and proceeded to adjudicate guilt.  The trial court sentenced appellant on June 6, 2008, to confinement for six months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal.


Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13, 2008.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Franchesa Ichelle Williams v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franchesa-ichelle-williams-v-state-texapp-2008.