Chazsman Chapell Small v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 30, 2020
• Docket: 11-19-00333-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed October 30, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-19-00333-CR ___________

CHAZSMAN CHAPELL SMALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21167B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, Chazsman Chapell Small, of the offense of aggravated robbery. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for thirty years. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and an explanatory letter. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In his response, Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and complains of the admission of evidence, during the punishment phase of trial, of an extraneous offense. The record reflects that Appellant had previously been convicted of aggravated robbery and had served thirteen years in prison. We have considered the assertions made by Appellant in his pro se response. However, following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

October 30, 2020 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating. 1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment. 2