Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State
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.
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Do Not Publish TEX.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Shawn Chaffin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-shawn-chaffin-v-state-texapp-2013.