Deamonte Antwoan Chopane v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-24-00009-CR
NO. 09-24-00010-CR
NO. 09-24-00011-CR
________________
DEAMONTE ANTWOAN CHOPANE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 23DCCR0991, 23DCCR0992, 23DCCR0993
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant for three offenses, Evading Arrest Detention
with a Motor Vehicle, a third-degree felony, Aggravated Robbery with a deadly
weapon, a first-degree felony, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, a state jail
felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 38.04(b)(2)(A); 29.03; 31.07. Chopane waived
his right to a jury trial, pleaded guilty to each offense, and elected to have the trial
court assess his punishment. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced Chopane to
1
ten years for Evading Arrest Detention with a Motor Vehicle, twenty-five years for
Aggravated Robbery, and two years for Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle, and
ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 1 Chopane timely appealed his three
convictions.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed briefs stating that he has
reviewed the cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted an extension of time for Chopane to file pro se briefs, and we received no
response from Chopane.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire
record in each case and counsel’s briefs, and we have found nothing that would
arguably support an appeal in these cases. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating
in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record
for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of
1
In the aggravated robbery case, the trial court made an affirmative finding
that Chopane had a deadly weapon, namely a firearm.
2
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to
order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 2
AFFIRMED.
KENT CHAMBERS
Justice
Submitted on July 22, 2024
Opinion Delivered July 31, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
2
Chopane may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3