Cedric Jamar Hill v. State
06-15-00005-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 11, 2015Background
- Appellant Cedric Jamel Hill was indicted for delivery of cocaine (over 1 g but under 4 g), pleaded guilty, and was found guilty by the trial court.
- Hill elected jury punishment; the jury assessed 14 years' confinement.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, concluding a conscientious review of the record found no non-frivolous appellate issues and moved to withdraw.
- The trial record includes voir dire with challenges for cause, peremptory strikes (including two black jurors struck by the State), a Batson objection, plea admonishments and signed plea paperwork, and the punishment-phase proceedings.
- Counsel identifies no adverse trial rulings preserved for appeal and requests the appellate court to independently review the record for frivolity or, if arguable issues exist, remand for new counsel.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Challenges for cause during voir dire | State: Challenges were properly handled; no preserved error. | Hill: Some challenges might have been improper or insufficiently addressed. | Trial court resolved challenges; appellant's counsel did not preserve objections to most State-granted challenges; no non-frivolous appellate claim identified. |
| 2. Batson objection to two struck jurors (Juror #8, #19) | State: Provided race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes. | Hill: Strikes were discriminatory under Batson. | Trial court denied Batson motion after State proffered race-neutral reasons; counsel found no viable Batson appeal. |
| 3. Sufficiency of the evidence (fact or law) | State: Conviction supported by the plea and the record. | Hill: Potential challenge to sufficiency of proof. | Hill pleaded guilty and waived many trial challenges; counsel found no non-frivolous sufficiency claim. |
| 4. Errors during punishment-phase proceedings | State: Punishment proceedings were proper; no harmful rulings. | Hill: Argued potential improper statements/evidence at punishment. | Only one defense objection was made and no adverse ruling preserved; counsel found no arguable punishment-phase error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (court-appointed counsel must file brief showing appeal is frivolous before withdrawing)
- United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir.) (Anders compliance: isolate possibly important issues and cite record and authorities)
- Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988) (definition of frivolous appeal)
- Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (purpose and review of Anders brief)
- Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994) (definition of frivolous appeal in Texas appellate context)