Chase Andrew Clower v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 1, 2024
• Docket: 10-23-00014-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00013-CR No. 10-23-00014-CR

CHASE ANDREW CLOWER, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law Navarro County, Texas Trial Court Nos. C41046-CR and C41048-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Chase Andrew Clower guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon, evading arrest or detention with a vehicle causing serious bodily injury, and

endangering a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(a)(2); 38.04(b)(3)(B); 22.041(f).

The jury assessed Clower’s punishment at twenty years, ten years, and ten years

confinement respectively in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional

Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33; 12.34; 12.35. The judge sentenced Clower accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal ensued. We

affirm the trial court’s judgments for each offense.

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

support of the motion in each case 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 id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Clower filed a pro se response, and the State filed a letter waiving its right to respond.

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,

87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 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, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 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, 826–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Clower v. State Page 2 Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Clower in each case is

granted.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 1, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Clower v. State Page 3