Gregory Wayne Chatman II v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued August 5, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00810-CR
———————————
GREGORY WAYNE CHATMAN II, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 12th District Court
Grimes County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 18384

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 23, 2018, appellant Gregory Wayne Chatman II pleaded guilty to

assault causing bodily injury by impeding circulation or breath1 in exchange for

four years deferred adjudication community supervision. On June 10, 2022, the

1
TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(B).
State moved to adjudicate his guilt, alleging: (1) cannabis use; (2) failure to report;

(3) failure to maintain suitable employment; (4) unauthorized travel; (5) failure to

pay fines, fees, and costs; (6) failure to enroll in family violence counseling; and

(7) failure to perform community service hours. The trial court adjudicated

appellant guilty and sentenced appellant to seven years’ confinement in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant

timely filed his notice of appeal.

Appellant’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 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 the Court with references to the record and

legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates 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.).

Counsel has informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of his

Anders brief and his motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of his

right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.

2
Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate

record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a

response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record, 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 (emphasizing reviewing

court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings,

whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for

review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable

grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that appellant may challenge a

holding that there are no arguable grounds for an appeal by filing a petition for

discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178

S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Conclusion

2
This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a
motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the
appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court
provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Zach Coufal must immediately send

appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

Amparo “Amy” Guerra
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3
Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeal
and that appellant 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).

4