Brandon Michael Hamel v. State of Texas - Sexual Assault Case Affirmed
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Brandon Michael Hamel for sexual assault of a child and possession of child pornography. The court found that the appeal regarding sufficiency of evidence for possession of child pornography was frivolous, as per an Anders brief filed by counsel.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth District (Beaumont), has affirmed the conviction of Brandon Michael Hamel in case number 09-23-00370-CR. The appellant was convicted of sexual assault of a child and possession of child pornography. Hamel's appellate brief argued only that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession of child pornography, which his counsel deemed a frivolous argument, leading to an Anders brief.
This decision means the conviction stands. The court directed Hamel's appellate counsel to file a motion to withdraw. Hamel was notified of his right to file a pro se brief. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is a specific case outcome. The disposition date is March 18, 2026.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Brandon Michael Hamel v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 09-23-00370-CR
- Nature of Suit: Sexual Assault
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Lead 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
1
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).
2
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.
3
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.
4
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.