Timothy Marquell Dewayne Williams v. The State of Texas — Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

NO. 12-26-00169-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
TIMOTHY MARQUELL DEWAYNE
WILLIAMS,
APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
§
§
§
APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Timothy Marquell Dewayne Williams appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance 	following 	the 	revocation 	of 	his 	deferred 	adjudication 	community 	supervision.
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by information with the first-degree felony offense of possession
of a controlled substance, namely a compound, mixture, or preparation containing codeine, in an
amount greater than 400 grams. Appellant pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement.
The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for
ten years.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, asserting that Appellant violated
the terms and conditions of his community supervision by committing another offense; failing to
pay his supervision fee, reimbursement, and outstanding pretrial supervision fees monthly; and
failing to successfully complete the drug offender education program within six months. Appellant

2
pleaded “not true” to each of the alleged violations. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the
trial court found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision as
alleged in the State’s motion, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him
“guilty” of possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced him to imprisonment for fifty years.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT T O
ANDERS V . CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. 	Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), the brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and
further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1
Appellant filed a pro se brief, in which he contends in two issues that the trial court (1)
abused its discretion by considering evidence obtained from the traffic stop and subsequent search
of his residence and (2) erred by admitting a detective’s “unqualified opinion testimony”
identifying untested substances as psychedelic mushrooms and THC vapes. 	We reviewed the
record for reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having
done so and finding no reversible error, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP . P. 43.2(a).
1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

3
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP . P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. 	See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 	Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date
that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP . P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See
TEX. R. APP . P. 68.3(a). 	Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 	See TEX. R. APP . P. 68.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered October 21, 2026.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Davis, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 21, 2026
NO. 12-26-00169-CR
TIMOTHY MARQUELL DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1614-24)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Davis, J.