Brandon Michael Hamel v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00370-CR

________________

BRANDON MICHAEL HAMEL, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1st District Court Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14546JD

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant, Brandon Michael Hamel, (“Hamel” or “Appellant”) for two offenses: (1) sexual assault of a child in cause number 14546JD, and (2) possession of child pornography in cause number 14683JD. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.011(a)(2), 43.26(a)(1). These offenses are a second and a third-degree felony, respectively. See id. §§ 22.011(f), 43.26(d). Although the two

2

cases were consolidated for trial and heard by a single jury, which convicted Hamel on both charges, we are issuing separate opinions in these appeals. 1 Hamel’s appellate brief argues only that the evidence was insufficient to convict Hamel of possession of child pornography. Although Hamel mentions other possible arguments, he states that the issue mentioned “is the only issue that would be appropriate for review.” We therefore construe Hamel’s brief as an Anders brief as it applies to Appeal No. 09-23-00370-CR and accordingly directed Hamel’s appointed appellate counsel to file a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We also directed counsel to mail a copy of the brief and his motion to withdraw to Hamel by August 18, 2025.

An Anders brief presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal of Appeal No. 09-23-00370-CR is frivolous. When filing his Motion to Withdraw, counsel notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so. Pursuant to Appellant’s request to examine the appellate record, on November 10, 2025, we directed the clerk of the trial court to provide Appellant access to a copy of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record on or before December 9, 2025, and to provide written verification to this Court of

We affirmed Hamel’s conviction for possession of child pornography. See 1

Hamel v. State, No. 09-23-00371-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6685 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Aug. 27, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

3

the date and manner in which the appellate record was provided. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The trial court did so, and we informed Appellant of his February 23, 2026 deadline to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Appellant.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal in Appeal No. 09-23-0370-CR. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

4

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT

Justice

Submitted on July 8, 2025 Opinion Delivered March 18, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.