Derek Randall Grandchampt v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00468-CR _________________ DEREK RANDALL GRANDCHAMPT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 94753 _______________________________________________________________ ___ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Derek Randall Grandchampt pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Grandchampt guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Grandchampt on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Grandchampt s unadjudicated community supervision. Grandchampt pleaded true to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Grandchampt violated the conditions 1 of his community supervision, found Grandchampt guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement. Grandchampt s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received a response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on April 6, 2011 Opinion Delivered April 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
