1 

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. 
2

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 
3

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.