Cedric Jamar Hill v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
06-15-00005-cr
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
6/11/2015 3:21:21 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
NO. 06-15-00005-CR
CEDRIC JAMEL HILL, Appellant FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
V. 6/11/2015 3:21:21 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Clerk
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
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 NON-
FRIVOLOUS MATTERS FOR APPEAL IN REGARD TO
CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE BY THE STATE
Issue # Two
THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOW NO NON-
FRIVOLOUS 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.
7381 744 (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.
4'('(1'--
emardVol06C
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