William Leslie Neal v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 355th District Court of Hood County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 assault family violence and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment and ninety-nine years confinement, respectively. The trial court sentenced him accordingly. 1 ¦ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 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 error ineffective 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, 922 23 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel s brief, Neal s eightyeight-page pro se brief, and an exhibit admitted solely as an offer of proof. We 2 ¦ Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). 2 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, 827 28 (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 DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.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 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, 813 14 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 76 (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) ( In the majority of cases, the record on direct appeal is undeveloped and cannot adequately reflect the motives behind trial counsel s actions. ). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
