Daniel Gordon Travis v. State of Texas--Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-00-00322-CR

Case Date: 11/28/2001

Plaintiff: Lindsay Faisst

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

Preview:Chad E. Scheller v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
54th District Court of McLennan County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-04-00146-CR
Chad E. Scheller,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 2001-464-C
MEMORANDUM Opinion
In 2001, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred an adjudication of Chad E. Scheller s guilt for two
counts of sexual assault against a minor and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years.
In 2004, the court adjudicated Scheller s guilt on both counts and sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment on each
count to be served concurrently. Scheller appeals.
Scheller s counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d
493 (1967). We notified Scheller that he had a right to file a written response, but he has not done so. See Sowels v.
State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.).
After thoroughly reviewing the record and the law, counsel concludes that Scheller s appeal presents no issues of
arguable merit. We have conducted an independent review of the record and the law and agree that there are no issues
of arguable merit.
In a deferred adjudication case, if the trial court subsequently determines, after a mandatory hearing, to adjudicate guilt
because of a violation of the terms of community supervision, that decision is not appealable. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
The punishment assessed was within the range provided for these offenses. Our review of the punishment phase
discloses no improprieties which would give rise to an issue of arguable merit.
Accordingly, we conclude that Scheller s appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. Thus, we affirm the judgment.
Counsel must advise Scheller of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Sowels, 45
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6320.html[8/20/2013 7:20:37 PM]

S.W.3d at 694.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2005
Do not publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6320.html[8/20/2013 7:20:37 PM]

Download 6320.pdf