Timothy James Chappelle v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

NO. 12-23-00226-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
TIMOTHY JAMES CHAPPELLE, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Timothy James Chappelle appeals his escape conviction. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief
in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967),
and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pro se
response. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with escape while arrested for or charged with a
felony offense, enhanced by a prior felony offense. 1 He pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter
proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, the evidence showed that Appellant was charged with felony
criminal mischief and placed in a low-risk detention facility. While in custody at the facility, he
tried to kick his way out of his housing unit. Because of Appellant’s aggressive behavior,
1
A third-degree felony, enhanced to a second-degree felony, punishable by imprisonment for a term of not
more than twenty or less than two years, and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§§ 38.06(a)(1), (c)(1) (West 2016); 12.42(a) (West 2019); 12.33 (West 2019).
detention officers cuffed his hands in front of him and placed him in a van to transport him to a
facility with single cells. On the way to the facility, Appellant kicked one of the van windows,
dove through the opening headfirst, and ran into a residential neighborhood.
Multiple police officers responded to the scene. Upon seeing Smith County Precinct 1
Deputy Constable José Rojas in his patrol vehicle, Appellant tried to elude him by running and
breaking into a house. An occupant of the house reached for an AR pistol, and Appellant fled to
the house next door. Meanwhile, Rojas radioed his location and gave chase. Other officers
joined Rojas, and a citizen alerted them to his location in the second house. Several officers
entered the house through the back door, but Appellant exited the front, where Smith County
Detention Sergeant Chris Rainer was waiting. Rainer tackled him and deployed his pepper spray
after Appellant refused to comply with commands to remain on the ground.
Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. Appellant pleaded “true” to the
enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of
twenty years and a $10,000.00 fine. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has reviewed the record and found no reversible points
of error. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2
In Appellant’s pro se response, he complains of (1) evidence tampering, (2) due process
and due course of law violations, (3) violations of his right to a fair trial and to call witnesses, (4)
ineffective assistance of counsel, (5) Brady violations, (6) false imprisonment, (7) unlawful
arrest, and (8) false testimony. When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an
appellant, an appellate court can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue
an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2)
determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that
2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
2
new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and
found no reversible error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. We further
overrule any and all pending motions as moot.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered October 9, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 9, 2024
NO. 12-23-00226-CR
TIMOTHY JAMES CHAPPELLE,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0396-23)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the
judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the
court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.