Kyle Gene Chism v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 11th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Kyle Gene Chism v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 11-07-00124-CR

Case Date: 08/23/2007

Plaintiff: Willie D. Rogers

Defendant: Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Appeal from 12th District Court of Walker County

Preview:Kyle Gene Chism v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Opinion filed August 23, 2007 Opinion filed August 23, 2007 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-07-00124-CR __________ KYLE GENE CHISM, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 91734 OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Kyle Gene Chism originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. At the February 9, 2007 hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for ten 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 states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8736.html[8/20/2013 7:29:51 PM]

App. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. PER CURIAM August 23, 2007 Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/8736.html[8/20/2013 7:29:51 PM]

Download 8736.pdf