Williams, Ronald Christopher v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 3, 2002
• Docket: 14-02-00187-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 3, 2002

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00187-CR

RONALD CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01CR1516

M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, enhanced as a habitual offender.  On February 22, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for sixty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that 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 demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (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).  A copy of the record was furnished to appellant.  On September 19, 2002, appellant filed his pro se response, in which he asserts he was not properly admonished as to his right to self representation when he was given his statutory magistrate=s warning.  The record on appeal reflects that appellant was informed of his rights in accordance with article 15.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Appellant does not contend that he invoked his right to self representation, and our review of the record finds no such assertion.  An accused must unequivocally assert his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525 (1975).  See Burgess v. State, 816 S.W.2d 424, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A further discussion of the brief or appellant=s response would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Hudson and Fowler.

Do not publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).