### 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 T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 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 $1 0,000 fine. The trial court certified Moore’s right of appeal, and this appeal followed.Moore v. State Page 2 I. A NDERS B RIEF
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 br ief 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 rec ord 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 t his 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 info rmed MooreMoore 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. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 brief s, 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 transmit tal 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 specifi ed 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 port ion 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 5 09. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW 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, co unsel 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 timel y motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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]