On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1110589A
Appellant, Damion Damone Williams, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31. Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In 2007, appellant pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation, to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery.*fn1 The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.
In 2009, the State moved to adjudicate, alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision by: (1) failing to report, (2) failing to maintain employment, (3) failing to pay court costs, and (4) failing to participate in certain supervision programs. Appellant, who was represented by retained counsel, pleaded "true" to these allegations.
On March 5, 2009, the trial court found the allegations true, found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at confinement for eight years. The trial court entered an affirmative finding on the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm.
On April 4, 2009, appellant filed a motion to reconsider, challenging some, but not all, of the alleged violations. The trial court denied the motion.
On April 23, 2009, appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant stated, without further discussion, that he "object[ed] to the legal validity of the conviction for which community supervision was imposed" and that he sought relief from "unreasonable conditions of community supervision." The substance of the application, however, focused entirely on challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation. Specifically, appellant asserted that he had not "knowingly or intentionally" violated the terms of community supervision, and he asserted that he had complied, or had attempted to comply, with the terms. Finally, appellant complained that the punishment assessed, that of confinement for eight years, is "excessive and unreasonable."
On May 13, 2009, the trial court denied habeas relief. On June 4, 2009, appellant filed a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. The brief reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response. The State waived its opportunity to file a brief.
Generally, when this Court receives an Anders brief from an appellant's appointed counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. Here, however, we do not undertake the usual Anders ...