IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00025-CR

TIMOTHY ANDREA MOORE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-501-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Timothy Andrea Moore, was charged by indictment with indecency 

with a child by contact. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011). At the conclusion 

of the evidence, the jury found Moore guilty of the charged offense and sentenced Moore 

to forty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice with a $10,000 fine. The trial court certified Moore’s right of appeal, and 

this appeal followed.
Moore v. State Page 2

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 

493 (1967), Moore’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to 

withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of 

error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements 

of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ 

points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts 

and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 

112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1978), Moore’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there 

are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court 

that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on 

appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Moore; and 

(3) provided Moore’s family with a copy of the record, as instructed, and informed Moore 
Moore v. State Page 3

of his right to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 

813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Moore filed a pro se 

response on August 18, 2016.2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, 

counsel’s brief, and Moore’s pro se response and have found nothing that would 

arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (“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, 

 

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the 

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the 

case presents any meritorious issues.’” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 

(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

2

In his transmittal letter to Moore, appellate counsel indicated that:

Appellant refused to take the copy of the record because he was concerned other inmates 

would learn of its contents. Appellant instructed counsel to send the record to Appellant’s 

family at a specified address instead. Counsel will immediately send the copy of the record 

to Appellant’s family as instructed by U.S. mail and will follow all further reasonable 

instructions by Appellant regarding the record.

Counsel also noted that he read Moore “a portion of the trial transcript and the clerk’s record.” Based on 

counsel’s statements and the fact that Moore did not complain in his pro se response about difficulty in 

obtaining the record, we have fair assurance that Moore and his family have received or had an opportunity 

to receive a copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Moore v. State Page 4

the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Moore’s attorney has asked this Court for permission 

to withdraw as counsel in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must 

withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the 

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the 

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is 

ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Moore and to advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006). 

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Moore wish to seek further review of this case 

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

review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must 

be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely 

motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and 

all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of 

rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409 n.22.
Moore v. State Page 5

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed August 31, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]