Lance Punahou Chancellor v. State
Lance Punahou Chancellor v. State
Opinion
After accepting appellant Lance Punahou Chancellor's guilty pleas, the district court
found him guilty of burglary of a habitation and attempted burglary of a habitation. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01 (West 1994), 30.02 (West Supp. 2000). The court assessed
punishment in the first cause at imprisonment for fifteen years, and at imprisonment for ten years
in the second.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Bea Ann Smith, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: November 16, 2000
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.