Willie Bernard Freeman v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00288-CR

Willie Bernard Freeman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY
NO. CR27503, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Bernard Freeman pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a

controlled substance in an amount of less than one gram in a drug-free zone, a third-degree

felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.115(b), .134. Freeman entered into a

plea-bargain agreement with the State, and consistent with the agreement, the trial court deferred

his adjudication of guilt and placed him on deferred-adjudication community supervision for

three years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.101. The State subsequently filed a motion to

proceed with adjudication alleging that Freeman violated 10 terms of his community supervision:

(1) submitting a drug sample that tested positive for cocaine; (2) being delinquent $320 in court

costs; (3) being delinquent $180 in restitution; (4) being $1680 delinquent in his supervisory

fees; (5) being $2025 delinquent in fines; (6) being $40 delinquent in drug/alcohol use testing

fees; (7) being $50 delinquent in a Crime Stoppers Program payment; (8) failing to complete 160
hours of community service; (9) failing to submit to a substance abuse evaluation and follow

any/all treatment recommendations, if any; and (10) pay a $105 tuition fee and complete a

drug-offender education program. During a hearing on the motion to adjudicate, Freeman

pleaded true to allegations (1) through (7) and (10), but not true to allegations (8) and (9).

At the hearing, Freeman’s community-supervision officer testified about

Freeman’s noncompliance with the conditions of his community supervision. After the State

rested, Freeman chose to testify, admitting on direct-examination and cross-examination that he

tested positive for drugs while on community supervision. After the hearing, the trial court

found true the allegations of Freeman’s failure to abstain from use of controlled substances

(allegation 1), failure to complete community-service hours (allegation 8), and failure to submit

to a substance-abuse evaluation (allegation 9). The trial court revoked Freeman’s

deferred-adjudication community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to six

years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.34. Freeman appeals the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating guilt.

Freeman’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw

supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,

744-45 (1967); 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”). Freeman’s counsel represented to the Court that he

provided copies of the motion and brief to Freeman; advised him of his right to examine the

2
appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of

the appeal in this Court; and provided him 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). Freeman requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this

Court’s order, the Milam County District Clerk provided written verification to this Court that a

copy of the appellate record was sent to Freeman on September 30, 2025. Freeman filed a pro se

brief challenging his conviction.

After independently reviewing the record and considering appellate counsel’s

brief and Freeman’s pro se brief, 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 adjudicating guilt.

__________________________________________
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: December 3, 2025

Do Not Publish

3