Deamonte Antwoan Chopane v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00010-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-24-00009-CR NO. 09-24-00010-CR NO. 09-24-00011-CR ________________

DEAMONTE ANTWOAN CHOPANE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 23DCCR0991, 23DCCR0992, 23DCCR0993 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant for three offenses, Evading Arrest Detention

with a Motor Vehicle, a third-degree felony, Aggravated Robbery with a deadly

weapon, a first-degree felony, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, a state jail

felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 38.04(b)(2)(A); 29.03; 31.07. Chopane waived

his right to a jury trial, pleaded guilty to each offense, and elected to have the trial

court assess his punishment. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Chopane to

1 ten years for Evading Arrest Detention with a Motor Vehicle, twenty-five years for

Aggravated Robbery, and two years for Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle, and

ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 1 Chopane timely appealed his three

convictions.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed briefs stating that he has

reviewed the cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Chopane to file pro se briefs, and we received no

response from Chopane.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record in each case and counsel’s briefs, and we have found nothing that would

arguably support an appeal in these cases. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating

in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record

for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of

1 In the aggravated robbery case, the trial court made an affirmative finding that Chopane had a deadly weapon, namely a firearm. 2 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to

order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 2

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on July 22, 2024 Opinion Delivered July 31, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

2 Chopane may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3