In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00041-CR
CHARLES LEE MOORE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 115th District Court
Upshur County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17,023
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Charles Lee Moore pled guilty to the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Adjudication of Moore’s guilt was deferred, however,
and Moore was placed on community supervision for ten years.
Subsequently, the State moved to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Moore violated
various terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision. Moore pled
“not true” to allegations one and two in the motion to proceed with adjudication and “true” to
allegations three through nine of the State’s motion. The trial court found that Moore had violated
seven conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated
him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Moore appeals from the judgment
adjudicating his guilt. Moore was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.
Moore’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlines the procedural history of the case,
provides a summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and
states that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of
Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–
13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Moore on June 20, 2016, and provided Moore with
a copy of the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as
2
counsel in this appeal. Although Moore was advised that his pro se response was due on or before
July 21, 2016, Moore has neither filed a pro se response nor requested an extension of time in
which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In the Anders context, once we determine that an appeal is frivolous, we must affirm the
trial court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: August 24, 2016
Date Decided: August 25, 2016
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request
to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel
will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2)
must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply
with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3