Court Opinion

ID: 9555545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 10:07:10.610856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:29.281502
License: Public Domain

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