Court Opinion

ID: 9929695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 11:11:26.526826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:44:19.145924
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00121-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN LAMON MOORE,                              §      APPEAL FROM THE 475TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      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
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.

                                                        2
                                                  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)

                                                          3
                                   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.