Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

William Leslie Neal v. State

William Leslie Neal v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 31, 2009

William Leslie Neal v. State

Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 FORT WORTH

 

 

                                        NO. 2-08-266-CR

 

 

WILLIAM LESLIE NEAL                                                         APPELLANT

 

                                                   V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

 

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

 

              FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

 

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

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

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

A jury convicted Appellant William Leslie Neal of sexual assault and assaultBfamily violence and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment and ninety-nine years= confinement, respectively.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.


Neal=s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel=s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).  Neal has filed a pro se brief in which he enumerates three potential sources of errorCineffective assistance of counsel, abuses of discretion by the trial court in the admission and exclusion of evidence and limitations on cross-examination, and alleged Brady[2] violations by the State.

Once an appellant=s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922B23 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82B83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).


We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, Neal=s eighty-eight-page pro se brief, and an exhibit admitted solely as an offer of proof.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.[3]  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827B28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Accordingly, we grant counsel=s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court=s judgment.      

 

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL:  MCCOY, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED: December 31, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).

[3]We note that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is usually best addressed by a postconviction writ of habeas corpus.  See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813B14 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475B76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009); Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (AIn the majority of cases, the record on direct appeal is undeveloped and cannot adequately reflect the motives behind trial counsel=s actions.@).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑