Opinion
01-22-00114-CR
12-29-2022
KWADAREUS DYKWAN CHAPEL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 18082
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
In 2017, appellant Kwadareus Dykwan Chapel pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance.
Pursuant to a recommendation by the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Chapel on community supervision for four years. In 2021, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Chapel had violated five conditions of his community supervision. Chapel pleaded "true" to the violation of one condition and "not true" to the violation of the other four conditions. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Chapel had violated two conditions of community supervision. The trial court adjudicated Chapel guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at twelve months' confinement in the state jail. Chapel timely filed a notice of appeal.
Chapel's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and to legal authority. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Chapel's counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief to Chapel. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel also certified that he informed Chapel of his right to file a pro se response and to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel certified that he provided Chapel with a form motion for pro se access to the record. See id. at 319-20. Chapel has not requested access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (stating that appellate court, not counsel, determines "after a full examination of all the proceedings" whether "the case is wholly frivolous"); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (stating that reviewing court has duty to determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (stating that we make this determination by reviewing "entire record"). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 &n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Chris M. Dillon must immediately send Chapel the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(C).
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Chapel of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).