NO. 12-23-00121-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN LAMON MOORE,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE

§

§ 

§ 

APPEAL FROM THE 475TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Steven Moore appeals his convictions for possession of between four and two hundred 

grams of cocaine. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred 

grams of cocaine. The indictment further alleged that Appellant had two, prior felony 

convictions. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the record reflects that Tyler Police Department officers responded to reports of a 

hit-and-run automobile accident and a person, who was naked and dancing in the roadway. 

When Officer Adam Riggle arrived upon the scene, he observed one vehicle which appeared to 

have struck a power pole and a second vehicle which also appeared to have been involved in an 

accident. He also noticed clothing and other things strewn about the roadway, as well as 

Appellant, who was naked and standing in the street. Riggle suspected that Appellant was high 

on phencyclidine (PCP) and asked him if he had smoked or taken anything that night. Appellant 
2 

responded that he had smoked and taken every drug in the world, specifically cocaine, heroin, 

and ecstasy. Riggle also asked Appellant if he drove the car that struck the power pole, and 

Appellant responded, “I drove the car, and I've driven every car in the world.” Riggle discovered

pills, plastic bags, and clothing leading from near to the crashed vehicle to where he first 

observed Appellant standing that night. Riggle also recovered Xanax from a pair of pants 

located in the roadway, as well as two debit/credit-type cards located near Appellant’s clothes, 

which displayed the name, “Steven Moore.” Officer Rusty Addair recovered a baggie with a 

white powdery substance he suspected was cocaine. Officers also recovered substances 

suspected to be ecstasy and methamphetamine. Texas Department of Public Safety Forensic 

Scientist Katie Matheney testified that she determined that the substance submitted to the 

laboratory was cocaine, the total weight of which was 12.28 grams. 

Following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found 

Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment, at which 

Appellant pleaded “true” to the two enhancement allegations. Ultimately, the jury found the 

enhancement allegations to be “true” and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for 

life. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of 

the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for 

appeal.1

 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, 

notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, 

and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief 

has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
3 

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. 

Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this 

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 

Opinion delivered January 31, 2024. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

JANUARY 31, 2024 

NO. 12-23-00121-CR

STEVEN LAMON MOORE, 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 475th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0322-23) 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance. 

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.