Lloyd Christian Hamill v. The State of Texas Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00398-CR LLOYD CHRISTIAN HAMILL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 10-05656-CRF-361 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lloyd Hamill was found guilty of the offense of tampering with a witness, which was prosecuted as a state-jail felony. The jury assessed a two-year statejail sentence and recommended community supervision. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly but added ninety-days incarceration in the Brazos County jail and 250 hours of community service. Appellant s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se response to the Anders brief, but we conclude that it raises no non-frivolous issues. In an Anders case, we must, after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is wholly frivolous or without merit when it lacks any basis in law or fact. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed counsel s motion to withdraw from representation of Appellant. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Appellant a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 18, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] Hamill v. State Page 2 Hamill v. State Page 3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.
