Deundra Neal Hamilton v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-21-00209-CR
___________________________
DEUNDRA NEAL HAMILTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR14839
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Wallach and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant Deundra Neal Hamilton of the third-degree felony
offense of assault–bodily injury of a family or household member by impeding the
breathing or circulation of the blood and assessed Hamilton’s punishment at 10 years’
imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B); see also id. § 12.34
(punishment range for third-degree felony). The trial court sentenced Hamilton
accordingly.
After determining that Hamilton’s appeal was frivolous, Hamilton’s court-
appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of
that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v. California
by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in
compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Hamilton with copies of the brief and
motion to withdraw, she informed Hamilton of his right to file a pro se response, to
review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court deny
relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Hamilton had the
opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do so. The State
has not filed a response.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined
that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record
2
that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: August 10, 2023
3