Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
DecidedFebruary 26, 2026
Docket02-25-00105-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas (Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00105-CR ___________________________

ANDREW MORAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1806318

Before Kerr, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

Andrew Moran appeals concurrent 14-year sentences assessed by the trial court

after Moran pleaded guilty––without an agreement on punishment––to three counts

of child-pornography possession. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26(e), (g).

Moran’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

in which she argues that the appeal is frivolous. The brief complies with

Anders v. California by professionally evaluating the appellate record and demonstrating

why Moran cannot show any arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel also complied with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although given the opportunity, Moran did not file a pro

se response; likewise, the State declined to file a responsive brief.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel fulfills Anders’s requirements, this

court must independently examine the record for any arguable ground that may be

raised. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83,

109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we agree

that––but for corrections to the three judgments and to the bill of costs––the appeal

is wholly without merit; we have found nothing that might arguably support the

appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2 In all three judgments, the trial court included a $100 fine as part of the

sentence. But the trial court did not orally pronounce any fine when it sentenced

Moran. See Ette v. State, 559 S.W.3d 511, 513, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (discussing

general principle that fines, as part of defendant’s sentence, must be orally

pronounced in defendant’s presence). Thus, we will delete the fines from each

judgment. See, e.g., Fuentes v. State, No. 02-24-00298-CR, 2025 WL 2492354, at

*2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); see also Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 729–30 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2005, no pet.) (noting that in Anders appeals we may modify judgment errors to

conform to record).

In addition to assessing costs and a reimbursement fee in Count One’s

judgment, the trial court found that the $10 reimbursement fee was to be credited for

time served. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 43.09. Nevertheless, the bill of costs

shows the $10 as currently due.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 103.001(b);

Allen v. State, 426 S.W.3d 253, 256–57 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.) (noting

that bill of costs obligates criminal defendant to pay those costs). We therefore correct

the bill of costs to show “Total Reimbursement Fees” of $0.00. See, e.g., Ochoa v. State,

No. 02-23-00225-CR, 2024 WL 1792771, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 25,

1 Additionally, the judgment’s selected punishment option provides that reimbursement fees are not due until the defendant’s release from confinement. See Ramirez v. State, No. 02-24-00224-CR, 2025 WL 1350046, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 8, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

3 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Jones v. State, 691 S.W.3d

671, 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024, pet. ref’d).

We affirm the judgments as modified, and we reform the bill of costs to reflect

“$0.00” owed for “Total Reimbursement Fees.” We also grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 26, 2026

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bray v. State
179 S.W.3d 725 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Lechristopher Charles Allen v. State
426 S.W.3d 253 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Ette, Eddie Offiong
559 S.W.3d 511 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-moran-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp2-2026.