Court Opinion

ID: 9838099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 10:09:52.885955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:13.688822
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-22-00629-CR
                                      NO. 03-22-00630-CR

                            Dwayne Chance Chadwick, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

               FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY
                          NOS. A-22-0717-SA & A-22-0718-SA,
                 THE HONORABLE CARMEN DUSEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Dwayne Chance Chadwick pleaded guilty to two charges of murder.

Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(c). He waived his right to file a motion for new trial or appeal the

convictions as to guilt/innocence. After a bench trial on punishment in both cases, the trial court

sentenced Chadwick to forty-five years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice—Institutional Division for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial

court certified Chadwick’s right to appeal the punishments only.

               In each case, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel supported by a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The

briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).
                 Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of

the motions and briefs to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record

and file a pro se brief; provided appellant with a complete copy of the appellate record; and

notified appellant of his deadline to file a pro se brief, along with the mailing address of this

Court. 1 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. To date, appellant has not filed an objection or a

pro se brief in this Court.

                 We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate

counsel’s briefs, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d

at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with

counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and that the appeals

are frivolous.

                 Counsel’s motions to withdraw in both cases are granted.         The trial court’s

judgments in both cases are affirmed.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: August 31, 2023

Do Not Publish

        1
           Counsel’s July 28, 2023 letter to Appellant mistakenly stated that Appellant could
object to counsel’s motion to withdraw and could file a pro se brief in the 11th Court of Appeals.
Counsel sent a revised letter to Appellant correctly stating that Appellant could file his objection
and brief in this Court and providing Appellant with this Court’s address. This Court’s clerk
contacted the clerk of the 11th Court of Appeals, who reported that, as of this date, Appellant has
not filed an objection or brief in the 11th Court of Appeals.

                                                 2