Bart Thomas Moore v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00223-CR
__________________
BART THOMAS MOORE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR21-0092
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Bart Thomas Moore (“Appellant” or
“Moore”) for failure to give information and render aid after an accident resulting in
serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B). Moore
pleaded “not guilty,” but a jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of failure to
give information and render aid after an accident resulting in bodily injury. After a
hearing on punishment, the jury found the two alleged enhancements for prior felony
convictions “true” and assessed punishment at eighty years of confinement. See Tex.
1
Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (penalties for repeat or habitual offenders); Tex. Transp.
Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(2).
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted an extension of time for Moore to file a pro se brief, and Moore filed a pro
se brief in response.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives
an Anders brief and also a pro se brief, the appellate court has two choices. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine
that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has
reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that
arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new
counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We do not address the merits of
each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have determined there
are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed
2
the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Moore’s pro se brief, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered
the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found
none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on February 1, 2024
Opinion Delivered February 7, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
1
Moore may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3