NO. 06-15-00005-CR 

CEDRIC JAMEL HILL, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

NO. 06-15-00005-CR 

Appeal from 12-0317X 71' District Court 

Harrison County, Texas 

Oral Argument is not Requested 

Appellant's Brief 

Appellant Anders Brief 

Oral Argument is Not Requested 

Word Count: 1409 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00005-cr

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

6/11/2015 3:21:21 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/11/2015 3:21:21 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES 

HONORABLE BRAD MORIN 

71ST JUDUCIAL DISTRICT COURT 

200 WEST HOUSTON 

HARRISON COUNTY 

MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670 

COKE SOLOMON 

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

200 WEST HOUSTON 

MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670 

& 

SHAWN CONNERLY 

ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

200 WEST HOUSTON 

SB#2405 1899 

REPRESENTING THE STATE OF TEXAS 

MR. SCOTT RECTENWALD 

110 WEST FANN1N 

SBOT NO. 00794510 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT 

VERNARD SOLOMON 

SBOT# 18835000 

103 E. Houston 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone 903.938.4555 

ATTORNEY ON APPEAL ONLY 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Statement of the Case P. 1 

Oral Argument Notice P. 1 

Issues Presented P. 1 

Statement of the Facts P. 2 

Issue #One P.2 

Issue # Two P. 3 

Issue #3 P.3 

Issue #4 P.3 

Summary of the Argument P. 4 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) P. 4 

Goghian v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988) P. 4 

Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.)P. 6 

Johnson v. State. 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, pet. Ref d) P. 5 

United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328. 1329 (5th Cir. 1976) P. 4 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 

111 
Appellant's Notice of Filing Anders Brief 

Statement of the Case 

The Appellant was indicted by a Harrison County Grand Jury with the 

offense of delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, by actual delivery of 

more than one gram but less than four grams. He entered a plea of guilty before 

the Court and was found guilty on January 5, 2015 by the presiding Judge Brad 

Morin.(S.F. v2, p13,1 1 lthru 19) Appellant elected that the jury set his punishment 

and a jury was empaneled by the Court for that purpose. The jury set his 

punishment at 14 years confinement in the Department of Corrections Institutional 

Division. 

Oral Argument Notice 

Appellant does not request oral argument. 

Issues Presented 

Issue # One 

THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOW NO NONFRIVOLOUS MATTERS FOR APPEAL IN REGARD TO 

CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE BY THE STATE 

Issue # Two 

THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOW NO NONFRIVOLOUS MATTERS FOR APPEAL IN REGARD TO THE 
BATSON OBJECTION 

Issue # Three 

AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE 

THE COURT, THE RECORD SHOW NO NON-FRIVOLOUS 

MATTERS IN REGARD TO SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, 

FACTUAL OR LEGAL. 

Issue #Four 

AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE RECORD ON 

PUNISHMENT, THE RECORD SHOW NO NON-FRIVOLOUS 

MATTERS FACTUAL OR LEGAL. 

Statement of the Facts 

Issue # One 

At the conclusion of the voir dire and before the striking of the list by both 

parties, the Court asked the attorneys to approach the bench where challenges for 

cause were heard by the court. (S.F. v2, p99, 18 thru plo1, 1 9) The attorney for 

the Appellant agreed and raised no object to most of the challenges by the state 

and those few that he questioned the Court called to the bench for verification of 

their position complained of by the State. The Attorney for Appellant raised only 

one objection by challenge which the Court also called to the bench and the 

position was made more clear. (S.F. vol 2, plo3, 116 thru p104, 15) The balance of 

the complained jurors were heard by the Court and ruled upon. All challenges by 

2 
the state which were granted were not objected to by the attorney for the Appellant 

and therefore nothing is preserved for appeal. The challenged by the Appellant's 

attorney was granted. 

Issue # Two 

After the list were struck by both attorneys and the jury was named, a 

Batson objection was brought forward by attorney for Appellant to two persons 

struck by the State. (S.F.vol2, p112,122) Juror #8 R. Walker and Juror #19 

McGlothin, both black men. The State gave a race-neutral reason for both strikes 

(S.F. v 2, p1 14, 115 thru 24.) The Court denied the Batson Motion. (S.F. v2, p1 15, 

1 3) 

Issue # Three 

Outside the presence of the jury panel, the Court gave the required 

admonishments to the Appellant as evidence by the exhibits offered into evidence 

and questioned of by the Appellant. (Tr. P. 38 thru 44) The Court then went over 

each of the documents signed by the Appellant which had been offered into 

evidence and accepted without objection as to the understanding of each by the 

Appellant and as to the voluntary nature of the signatures. (S.F. vol 2, p. 8 thru p. 

13) 

Issue # Four 

1 
The total of the evidence offered during the punishment phase of the trial 

was done so without objection ending with an adverse ruling upon which an 

appeal could be based. Subsequent to the offer of evidence both sides argued their 

position to the jury. Only one objection was made by the attorney for Appellant 

that statements made by the State was outside the record. A general ruling was 

made by the Court resulting in no adverse ruling upon which an appeal could be 

based. 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

Appellant's counsel has reviewed the entire record in this appeal and has 

determined that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

ARGUMENT 

The United States Supreme Court held in Anders v. Caljfornia. 386 U.S. 

7381744 (1967), that a court-appointed attorney may not raise an issue in an appeal 

if he makes a conscientious examination of the case and finds the appeal to be 

wholly frivolous. To comply with Anders, counsel must isolate "possibly 

important issues" and "furnish the court with references to the record and legal 

authorities to aid it in its appellate function." United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 

1328. 1329 (5th Cir. 1976). After the Appellant is given an opportunity to 

respond, the Court shall makea full examination of the record to detect whether the 

2 
case is frivolous. Anders, supra, at 744. 

A frivolous appeal has been defined as an appeal in which the result is 

obvious or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. Coghian v. Starkey, 

852 F.2d 806. 811 (5th Cir. 1988). The Waco Court of Appeals has defined a 

"frivolous appeal" as one where "the only theories that the attorney can discover 

after thisconscientious review of the record and the law are arguments that cannot 

conceivably persuade the court." V. State. 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.-Waco 

1994, pet.refd.). 

Appellant's counsel has conducted a thorough review of the record of this 

appeal, and has been unable to find any non-frivolous error. No error is evident 

from this record. Therefore, pursuant to Anders, Appellant's appointed counsel 

files this Brief, and moves for withdrawal. 

Anders Brief 

The purpose of an Anders brief is to support counsel's motion to withdraw 

by showing that he has performed a conscientious examination of the record, that 

the appeal is frivolous, and that an appellant should be denied his constitutional 

right to appointed counsel on appeal. Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776,779 

(Tex.App. -Dallas 

1995, no pet.). The ultimate test of an Anders brief is whether it contains a 

3 
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. Johnson, supra, at 646. 

B. Professional Evaluation of the Record 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 provides: 

"As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must 

show that: "(1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, 

objection, or motion that: 

"(A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the 

trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, 

unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context; and 

"(B) complied with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil or Criminal 

Evidence or the Texas Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure; and 

"(2) the trial court: 

"(A) ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly; or 

"(B) refused to rule on the request, objection, or motion and the complaining party 

objected to the refusal." 

Appellant plead "guilty" before the Court after signing all the necessary 

papers which were introduced into evidence by the State. The Court accepted the 

plead and found the Appellant "Guilty" A jury was selected for the purpose of 
punishment, evidence offerred and accepted, and a verdict rendered at 14 years 

punishment. The Court thereafter sentenced the Appellant to fourteen years which 

is within the range of punishment. 

Conclusion 

Appellant's attorney has conducted a thorough review of the record of this appeal, 

and has determined that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. 

I P1 YWVA 'II I LkY• t 

For the reasons set forth herein and based on the Motion to Withdraw as 

Appellant's Counsel, Appellant's counsel requests the Court to conduct an 

independent examination of the proceedings and determine whether the appeal is 

wholly frivolous, and in the event that the Court finds that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, that the Court grant 

the Motion to Withdraw as Appellant's Counsel and affirm the judgment of the 

trial court, or in the alternative, if the Court determines that there are arguable 

grounds, the Court abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court with 

instructions that the trial court appoint new and different counsel to represent 

Appellant on appeal to present those arguable grounds, as well as any others that 

new counsel might wish to present. 
Respe tfully Submitted. 

Vernard Solomon 

103 E. Houston 

Marshall, Texas 

SN# 18835000 

Telephone 903.938.5151 

Fax 903.938.5151 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On this the 10th day of June, 2013,1 hereby certify that a true and correct 

copy of the above has been mailed to the office of the Criminal 

DistrictAttorney for Harrison County and the has been EMAILED on the 

same date. 

emardVol06C4'('(1'-- 

7 
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

Comes now Vernard Solomon who states that the Word Count of the 

enclosed document, by computer is 1409 words not including those items that are 

listed as exempt from count. 

Vernard Solomon