CourtListener 10671809•William Augustus Bryant v. the State of Texas
William Augustus Bryant v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10671809Txctapp311 sept. 2025
Texte intégral
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00494-CR
William Augustus Bryant, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 23-1141-K368
THE HONORABLE SARAH SOELDNER BRUCHMILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Augustus Bryant was charged with possession with intent to deliver
between four and two hundred grams of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). See Tex.
Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102(6), .112(a), (d). Bryant pleaded guilty to the charge, and the
jury assessed his punishment at forty years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.32. The
trial court rendered its judgment of conviction consistent with the jury’s verdict. Bryant
appealed his conviction.
Bryant’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported
by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Bryant’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that
Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact
conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).
Bryant’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to
Bryant; advised Bryant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and
pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided
Bryant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing
address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). After
requesting and receiving a copy of the appellate record, Bryant filed a pro se brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and considered the appellate briefs
filed by counsel and Bryant, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm
the trial court’s judgment of conviction.
__________________________________________
Karin Crump, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump
Affirmed
Filed: September 11, 2025
Do Not Publish
2
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.