Andrew Moran v. the State of Texas
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.