Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 27, 2013
Docket05-12-01639-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State (Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State) 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
Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed June 27, 2013.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01639-CR

MICHAEL SHAWN CHAFFIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2-12-216

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang

Michael Shawn Chaffin waived a jury, pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation, and

pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (West

2011). The trial court assessed punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On

appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support

the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, we note that appellant’s name is misspelled in the trial

court’s nunc pro tunc judgment. Thus, we modify the nunc pro tunc judgment to correct the

spelling of appellant’s name to Michael Shawn Chaffin. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30

(Tex. App.─Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Douglas S. Lang DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121639F.U05

-2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MICHAEL SHAWN CHAFFIN, Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Appellant Court of Rockwall County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2-12-216). No. 05-12-01639-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Evans participating. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the nunc pro tunc judgment to correct the spelling of appellant’s name to Michael Shawn Chaffin.

As modified, we AFFIRM the nunc pro tunc judgment.

Judgment entered June 27, 2013.

-3-

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)
Asberry v. State
813 S.W.2d 526 (Court of 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)
Bigley v. State
865 S.W.2d 26 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-shawn-chaffin-v-state-texapp-2013.