eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2006-05

Kevin Jerome Moore v. State ( 2006 )


Menu:

  • In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-05-205 CR

    ____________________



    KEVIN JEROME MOORE, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

    Jefferson County, Texas

    Trial Cause No. 87194



    MEMORANDUM OPINION


    Kevin Jerome Moore pled guilty in Cause No. 87194 to the second degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (a)(3), (c)(2) (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Moore on community supervision for ten years commencing June 9, 2003. During the period of community supervision, the State filed a motion to adjudicate that alleged drug screens revealed Moore ingested controlled substances in violation of the terms of the community supervision order. Moore pled "true" to several of the State's allegations. The trial court adjudicated guilt and assessed a twenty year sentence.

    Moore'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). On January 26, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Moore to file a pro se brief. The appellant did not file a response.

    We have jurisdiction over the appeal. See Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). On appeal following adjudication, claims that directly and distinctly relate to punishment may be raised. Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In this case, the appellant had an opportunity to present evidence during the proceedings. See Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

    We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trial court's judgment is affirmed. (1)

    AFFIRMED.



    ____________________________

    DAVID GAULTNEY

    Justice





    Submitted on May 22, 2006

    Opinion Delivered May 31, 2006

    Do Not Publish



    Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

    1.

    Appellant may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.