A Texas appellate court has upheld the convictions of Chad Haynes, who was found guilty of evading arrest and two counts of accident involving personal injury. The Texas Court of Appeals for the Seventh District announced its decision on October 23, 2026, affirming the trial court's judgments. This ruling affects Haynes directly, as it confirms his convictions and sentences without any grounds for appeal.

The case, identified as docket number 07-26-00252-CR, was originally heard in the 16th District Court of Denton County, Texas. The trial court, presided over by Judge Sherry Shipman, convicted Haynes of the charges after a thorough examination of the evidence presented during the trial. The appellate process began when Haynes sought to challenge these convictions, claiming there were errors in the trial that warranted a review.

Chad Haynes faced serious charges, including evading arrest, which is defined under Texas Penal Code § 38.04(a), and two counts of accident involving personal injury, as outlined in Texas Transportation Code § 550.021(c). The specifics of the incidents leading to these charges were not detailed in the court's opinion. However, it is clear that the nature of these charges indicates significant legal implications for Haynes, particularly regarding his freedom and criminal record.

The appellate court's ruling came after Haynes' court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the case, supported by an Anders brief. An Anders brief is a legal document that indicates a lawyer's belief that an appeal lacks merit. The court noted that the attorney had conducted a thorough review of the case and found no reversible errors that could support an appeal. The court stated, “Following our careful review of the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s convictions or sentences.”

Chief Justice Judy C. Parker, along with Justices Doss and Pratt, presided over this decision. The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court's judgments. This means that Haynes' convictions and sentences remain in place, and he will continue to face the consequences of his actions as determined by the lower court.

The ruling is significant as it underscores the challenges faced by defendants in appealing criminal convictions. The court's decision indicates that the legal system found no substantial basis for Haynes' appeal, reinforcing the trial court's findings. This outcome may serve as a cautionary tale for others in similar situations, highlighting the importance of having a strong legal defense during trial.

Moving forward, this ruling may impact Haynes' future legal options. While the court has affirmed his convictions, he still has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. This means he can seek further review from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, although the likelihood of success in such a petition is often low when the appellate court has found no reversible errors.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further legal actions that may arise from this ruling. However, the affirmation of Haynes' convictions is a clear indication that the legal process has reached a significant conclusion for him at this stage.