1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F TE XAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 266- CR W I L L I AM L E S L I E NE AL AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A j ury c onvi ct ed A ppe l l antW i l l i am Le sl i e Neal of s exu al as sa ul tan d as sa ul t–fam i l y vi ol enc e a nd as se ss ed hi s puni sh m entatl i fe i m pr i so nm entan d n in e ty -n in e y e a rs ’ c o n f in e m e n t , re s p e c t iv e ly . T h e t r ia l c o u rts e n t e n c e d h im ac cordi ngl y.2 ... Brady v. M ar yl and , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 3 S . C t. 1 1 9 4 (1 9 6 3 ).

2 N eal ’ s court - appo i nt ed appel l at e counsel has fi l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdraw as co uns el an d a br i ef i n s upp ortof

t hatm ot i on. Couns el ’ s br i ef an d m ot i on m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n d e rs v . C a lifo r n ia by presen ti ng a professi onal eva l uat i on of

t he rec ord de m ons t rat i ng w hy t here a re n o a rgua bl e g roundsfor re lie f. 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t . 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). N e a l h a s file d a p ro s e b r ie f in w hi ch he enu m erat es t hree pot ent i al s ource s of error — i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e o f cou ns el , ab us es of

di sc ret i on by t he t r i al co urti n t he adm i ss i on a nd e xcl us i on of evi den ce and l i m i t at i ons on c ros s- exa m i nat i on, an d a l l ege d Brady 2 vi ol at i ons b y th e S ta te . O nce an appel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed at t or ney f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdraw on t he ground t hatt he app ea l i s f r i vol ous an d ful fi l l s t he requ i rem ent s of A n d e rs , t hi s cou rti s obl i gat ed t o undert ak e an i nde pen den tex am i nat i on of t he re c o rd . S e e S taffo rd v . S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); M ays v. Stat e, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922– 23 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no p e t.). O n l y t h e n m a y w e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d ra w . See Pe ns on v . O hi o, 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 2 – 8 3 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 3 4 6 , 3 5 1 (1 9 8 8 ). 

### W e h ave car

efu ll y r evi ewed th e r

eco rd, co unsel’ s b rie f, Neal ’s eig hty e i g h t - p a g ep r

os eb ri e f, a n d a n e x h i b i t a d m i tte d s o l e l y a s a n o f f e r o f p r o o f. We3 ... W e not e t hat an i neffect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m i s usual l y best a d d re s s e d b y a p o s tc o n v i c ti o n w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . S e e T h o m p so n v . S tate , 9 S .W .3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 3 – 1 4 & n .6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); Ex part e To r res , 943 S .W .2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 5 – 7 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); se e a l so Tex . C ode C r i m . Proc. A n n . a rt. 1 1 .0 7 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ); S a l i n a s v . S tate , 163 S. W . 3d 734, 740 (Tex . C r i m . A pp. 2 00 5) ( “I n t he m aj or i ty of cases, the record on di rectappeal i s u n d e v e l o p e d a n d c a n n o t a d e q u a te l y re fl e c t th e m o ti v e s b e h i n d tri a l c o u n s e l ’s a c ti o n s .” ). 3 

### agr ee wi t h c o u n s e l t h a t

t h i sa p p e a l i sw h o l l yfri v o l o u sa n d w i t h o u t m e ri t ; we fin d not hin g in the rec ord th at migh t a rgu abl y s uppo rt theap pea l. 3 See Bl eds oe v. Stat e, 1 7 8 S .W .3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 – 2 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); se e a l so M ez a v . S t at e, 2 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 n .6 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 

### A cco rdi ngl y, we gra nt coun sel ’s moti on to w it hd ra w an d a ffi rm thetrial co urt’s jud gmen t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r 31, 2009