Finalized Nine-Year Sentence for Meth Possession: Leveraging Criminal Adjudication and Frivolous Appeals in Custody Modifications
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva, 13-25-00559-CR, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment adjudicating the appellant’s guilt for second-degree felony possession of methamphetamine and sentencing him to nine years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Following the appellant’s plea of “true” to community supervision violations and the subsequent filing of an Anders brief by appellate counsel, the court conducted an independent review and determined the appeal was wholly frivolous.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this criminal affirmance is a critical evidentiary milestone in parallel or subsequent SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) or modification litigation. A final, nine-year sentence for a second-degree felony involving a controlled substance serves as a “material and substantial change in circumstances” and provides near-dispositive evidence regarding the “best interest of the child” under Texas Family Code § 153.002. Furthermore, the court’s determination that the appeal was “frivolous” provides finality, allowing family courts to act on the conviction without the specter of a pending reversal.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Anthony David McWilliams was originally charged with possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, a second-degree felony. He initially received deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of six years. On September 16, 2025, the State moved to adjudicate his guilt, alleging multiple violations of the terms of his supervision. McWilliams entered a plea of “true” to all allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court adjudicated his guilt and imposed a nine-year prison sentence. McWilliams’s court-appointed counsel subsequently filed an Anders brief, asserting that there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether there were any arguable grounds for appeal regarding the trial court’s adjudication of guilt or the resulting nine-year sentence.
- Whether appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted following a thorough Anders review.
Rules Applied
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967): Sets the standard for court-appointed counsel to withdraw from a frivolous criminal appeal.
- Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.115(d): Governs the offense of possession of a controlled substance in Penalty Group 1.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1: Outlines the requirements for appellate court opinions, specifically in the context of Anders briefs.
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008): Clarifies the procedural requirements for Anders briefs in Texas courts, including record references and legal authorities.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the procedural integrity of the Anders process and an independent review of the record. Because the appellant pleaded “true” to the violations of his community supervision, his avenues for appeal were significantly narrowed. The appellate counsel fulfilled her duties by providing McWilliams with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw, and by informing him of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals, upon its own examination of the proceedings, found no reversible error. The court noted that counsel’s brief presented a professional evaluation of why no arguable grounds existed, and since the appellant failed to file a pro se response, the court proceeded to affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the appeal was wholly frivolous and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court found no grounds in the record that would arguably support a reversal of the adjudication or the sentence.
The Court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court also ordered counsel to notify the appellant of the opinion and his right to seek discretionary review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for family litigators looking to leverage criminal outcomes. When a parent is sentenced to a significant term of years—especially following a plea of “true” to drug-related violations—the family law attorney should immediately move to modify the parent-child relationship. The “true” plea acts as a judicial admission of the underlying conduct, which can be used to justify supervised visitation or the total denial of access under the “physical health or emotional development” standards of the Texas Family Code.
Checklists
Leveraging a Criminal Adjudication in Family Court
Verify Finality:
- Confirm the Court of Appeals has issued its mandate.
- Verify if a Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR) was filed within 30 days.
Evidence Procurement:
- Obtain a certified copy of the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt.
- Request the court reporter’s transcript from the criminal adjudication hearing to capture the “true” plea.
- Secure the State’s Amended Motion to Adjudicate to identify specific drug-use allegations.
Strategic Pleadings:
- File a Motion to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship based on a material and substantial change.
- Incorporate the nine-year sentence into a “Best Interest” analysis.
- Request an injunction or a “step-up” plan that remains dormant until the parent’s release from the Institutional Division.
Citation
Anthony David McWilliams v. The State of Texas, No. 13-25-00559-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a strategic asset in custody litigation. In Texas, a parent’s incarceration for a felony—particularly one involving methamphetamine—is nearly impossible to overcome in a “best interest” contest. The fact that the appellant pleaded “true” to the violations means the underlying facts of the drug use are essentially uncontested.
In a divorce with children, this case allows the non-incarcerated spouse to seek a disproportionate share of the marital estate if they can demonstrate that the incarceration has placed an undue financial or emotional burden on the family (fault in the breakup of the marriage). Furthermore, under Texas Family Code § 153.004, the court is prohibited from appointing a parent as a joint managing conservator if there is a history of drug use or criminal activity. This Anders affirmance provides the “bright-line” evidence needed to move for a Directed Verdict or a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of conservatorship.
~~85f693b5-5e4e-4199-8a39-bfbc2e04408f~~
Share this content:
