## 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
S teven 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 Gai n ous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between fo ur and two hundred grams of cocaine. The indictment further alleged that Appellant had two, prior felon y convictions. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a j ury trial. At trial, the record reflects tha t Tyler P olice D epartment officers responded to reports of a
hit- and

- run automobile accident and a person, who was naked an d dancing in the roa dway

. When Officer Adam Riggle arrived upon the scene, he observed one vehicle which appear ed to have struck a p ower pole and a second vehicle which also appear e d to have been involved in an accident. He also noticed clothing and other things s trewn abou t the road way , as well as App ellant , 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. Appellant2 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 c ar that struck t he power pole, and Appellant responded, “I d rove the car, and I've driven every car in the world.” Ri gg le discovered pills, plastic bags, and clothing leading from near to the crashed vehicle to where he first observed Appellant standing t hat night. Rig g le also recovered X anax from a pair of pants located in the roadway , as well as two debit/credit

- type car ds located near Appell ant ’ s clothes , which displayed the name, “ Steven Moor e. ” Officer R usty 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 Foren sic
Scient i st Katie Matheney testified that she determined that the substance subm itted to th e laboratory was cocaine , the total weight of which was 12.28 grams. Following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury f ound Appellant “guilty” as charged , and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment , at which Appellan t pleaded “true ” to the two enhancement allegations . Ultimately, the jury found the enhancement allegations to be “ true ” and assessed Appellant’s punis hment at imprisonme nt for
life . The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.

A NAL YSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State . Appella nt’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 , a nd High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel 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 App ellant with a copy o f the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pr o se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 4 36 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 C ONCLUSION 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 fo r consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for le ave 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should App ellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a pe tition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any pet ition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date that the last timely motion f or rehearing was overruled by this court. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must b e filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 deli vered January 31, 2024. Panel con sisted 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 aff irmed , and that this decision be certif ied to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consis ted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.