Brandon Vaughn Chalfant v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 30, 2024
Docket10-24-00199-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Brandon Vaughn Chalfant v. the State of Texas (Brandon Vaughn Chalfant v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brandon Vaughn Chalfant v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00199-CR

BRANDON VAUGHN CHALFANT, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 369th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-145-DCCR-0139

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brandon Vaughn Chalfant was convicted of the offense of Failure to Comply with

Registration Requirements and sentenced to 9 years in prison. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art 62.102(b)(2). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Chalfant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in

support of the motion 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 Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (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; see

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 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, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 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, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Chalfant is granted.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Chalfant v. State Page 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brandon Vaughn Chalfant v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-vaughn-chalfant-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.