Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-24-2021
Case Style:
Jacques Germaine McDaniel v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 09-19-00066-CR
Judge: HOLLIS HORTON
Court: Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Plaintiff's Attorney: Wayln G. Thompson
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Wayln G. Thompson - Criminal defense attorney represented Jacques Germaine McDaniel with a Murder charge.
In this appeal, Jacques Germaine McDaniel1 seeks to reverse a judgment
convicting him of murder. After McDaniel filed his notice of appeal, the attorney
who was assigned to represent him in his appeal filed a brief representing that there
are no arguments that can be made to argue the judgment against McDaniel should
1
The record reflects that Jacques Germaine McDaniel is also known as
Jacques McDaniel and Jaques Germaine McDaniel.
2
be reversed on appeal.
2 After reviewing the record, we agree no arguable issues exist
that would support requiring the trial court to appoint some other attorney to
represent McDaniel in his appeal.
3
The record in the appeal shows that, in July 2016, a grand jury indicted
McDaniel for murdering Christopher Gibson, alleging the murder occurred in June
2016.
4 Three years later, McDaniel pleaded not guilty. The parties tried the case to
a jury in February 2019. After hearing the evidence, the jury found McDaniel guilty
of murder and assessed a 45-year sentence.5
McDaniel appealed. After that, the trial court appointed an attorney to
represent him in the appeal. The court-appointed attorney filed a brief, which
presents the attorney’s professional evaluation of the record. McDaniel’s attorney
concludes in the brief that McDaniel’s appeal is frivolous.6 McDaniel’s attorney also
sent McDaniel a copy of the brief, and McDaniel, after receiving the brief, filed a
pro se response. In the pro se response, McDaniel argues (1) his trial counsel was
ineffective; (2) the evidence the jury considered in the trial is insufficient to support
its verdict finding him guilty of murder; (3) the State engaged in a selective
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1).
3
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
4
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1).
5
Murder is a first-degree felony punishable, generally, by confinement for five
to 99 years or life. Id. §§ 12.32(a), 19.02(c). 6
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978).
3
prosecution for improper reasons, reasons that McDaniel suggests are forbidden by
the United States Constitution; (4) in closing argument, the prosecutor injected
matters before the jury that were not admitted into evidence in his trial; and (5) the
trial court abused its discretion when it admitted highly prejudicial evidence in his
trial.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by counsel,
McDaniel’s pro se response, and the State’s response, we agree with the conclusion
in the brief filed by McDaniel’s attorney that McDaniel’s appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to rebrief McDaniel’s appeal.7 Given that no arguable issues exist supporting a meritsbased brief being filed to support McDaniel’s appeal, we affirm the judgment the
trial court rendered on the jury’s verdict following McDaniel’s trial.8
Outcome: AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: