Court Opinion

ID: 2867176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:46:14.348982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:36.566954
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00513-CR

Chad Chapman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RUNNELS COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 4484, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Chad Chapman was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after pleading guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child.  Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
§ 22.021 (West 2003).  After later finding that he violated the terms of supervision, the district court
adjudicated Chapman guilty and sentenced him to twenty-seven years in prison.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised
of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

  
				David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   April 10, 2003
Do Not Publish