Chad Russell George v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00128-CR

CHAD RUSSELL GEORGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Red River County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR03479

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chad Russell George was placed on community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement

in three separate cause numbers—one charge of injury to a child, for which he was sentenced to

ten years’ imprisonment, and two separate charges of endangering a child, for which he was

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each charge.1 The trial court suspended George’s

sentences and placed him on community supervision for a period of ten years for the first charge

and a period of five years for the two separate charges. As to the first charge, the State

subsequently moved to revoke George’s community supervision and sought adjudication,

alleging that George failed to pay required fees and fines, failed to perform 100 hours of

community service restitution, and failed to report for the months of January, February, and

March of 2025. George pled true to the first two allegations and partially true to the third. After

a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found allegations two and three to be

true, revoked George’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to ten

years imprisonment for injury to a child. George appeals.

George’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of

1
This appellate cause number addresses only the first charge of injury to a child, trial court cause number CR03479.
In companion cause number 06-25-00129-CR, George appeals his conviction for endangering a child in trial court
cause number CR03480. In companion cause number 06-25-00130-CR, George appeals his conviction for
endangering a child in trial court cause number CR03481.
2
Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

On December 2, 2025, counsel mailed to George copies of the brief, the motion to

withdraw, and a printed copy of the record. George was informed of his rights to review the

record and file a pro se response. On December 3, 2025, this Court informed George that his

pro se brief, if any were to be filed, was due on or before January 2, 2026. On January 13, 2026,

we notified George that this cause was set for submission on the briefs on February 3, 2026. On

January 20, 2026, George filed a motion requesting additional time to file his pro se response,

which was granted, giving him until February 19, 2026, to file a pro se response. George’s

response was received on February 17, 2026, and the case was re-set for submission on the briefs

on March 10, 2026.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record and George’s pro se response and have

independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

3
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

Charles van Cleef
Justice

Date Submitted: March 10, 2026
Date Decided: March 13, 2026

Do Not Publish

2
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P.
68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.4.
4