William Huizar Wilson v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00561-CR

William Huizar WILSON, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-03-0075-CRA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 11, 2023

AFFIRMED

William Huizar Wilson was indicted for sexual assault. Wilson entered a plea bargain with

the State in which he pled guilty. The trial court accepted his guilty plea, deferred a finding of

guilt, ordered that he be placed on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $2,000

fine. As part of the plea bargain, Wilson agreed to terms and conditions of community supervision,

including a requirement to participate in sex offender counseling as directed by his community

supervision officer. 04-22-00561-CR

On April 4, 2022, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. On June 21,

2022, Wilson pled true to violating the condition requiring him to participate and cooperate in

individual and/or group counseling as directed by his community supervision officer. The trial

court accepted Wilson’s plea of true, ordered a presentence investigation report, and reset the case

for further proceedings. On July 29, 2022, the trial court held the sentencing proceeding. After

hearing testimony from four witnesses, the trial court adjudicated Wilson guilty and sentenced

Wilson to twelve years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal

follows.

Wilson’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief, which included a request to

withdraw, in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates

a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Wilson and informed

him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). This court notified Wilson of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Wilson did not

file a pro se brief. See also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,

no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no

pet.). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds

for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the request to withdraw filed by appointed

counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924

S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Wilson wish to seek further review of this

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

-2- 04-22-00561-CR

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 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 is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition

for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-