Randy Hill v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00037-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

No. 10-24-00037-CR

Randy Hill, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 77th District Court of Freestone County, Texas Judge Patrick H. Simmons, presiding Trial Court No. 23-033CR

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Randy Hill guilty of sexual assault of a child. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. §22.011. Hill pled true to two enhancement paragraphs,

and the trial court assessed his punishment at 50 years confinement in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, and sentenced

him accordingly. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 12.42. This appeal

ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgments for each offense. Hill’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief

in support of the motion in each case 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).

Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); 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, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined

the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Hill is granted.

Hill v. State Page 2 MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 27, 2025

Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

Hill v. State Page 3