Reginald Darnell Hamilton v. State ( 2013 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00118-CR
NO. 03-13-00119-CR
NO. 03-13-00120-CR
NO. 03-13-00121-CR
Reginald Darnell Hamilton, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. CR23,400, CR23,401, CR23,425 & CR23,454
HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Reginald Darnell Hamilton brings these appeals from his pleas of guilty to
four offenses and pleas of true to enhancement paragraphs in his indictments without a plea bargain
for punishment. In trial court cause number CR23,400 (appellate cause number 03-13-00118-CR),
Hamilton pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of endangering a child, enhanced to a third-
degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.041. In trial court cause number CR23,401 (appellate
cause number 03-13-00119-CR), Hamilton pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of
unlawful possession of a firearm, enhanced to a third degree-felony. See id. § 46.04. In trial court
cause number CR23,425 (appellate cause number 03-13-00120-CR), Hamilton pleaded guilty to
the first-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance between 4 and 200 grams
with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone, enhanced by his pleading of true to a prior felony
conviction. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134. In trial court cause number CR23,454
(appellate cause number 03-13-00121-CR), Hamilton pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense
of delivery of a controlled substance less than one gram, enhanced to a third-degree felony. See id.
§ 481.112. After a hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment for the
offense of child endangerment, ten years’ imprisonment for the offense of unlawful possession of
a firearm, thirty years’ imprisonment for the offense of possession of a controlled substance between
4 and 200 grams with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone, and ten years’ imprisonment for the
offense of delivery of a controlled substance less than one gram.
Hamilton’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief addressing each of these appeals and concluding that these appeals are frivolous and
without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record in these causes demonstrating why there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684
(Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous
v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Hamilton
and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record in these causes and to file a pro se brief.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Hamilton did not file a pro se brief and did not request an extension
of time to do so.
2
We have reviewed the record in these causes and find no reversible error. See Garner
v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s motion
to withdraw from these appeals is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: November 21, 2013
Do Not Publish
3