Domingo Hector Moya v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 13-24-00552-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00552-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

DOMINGO HECTOR MOYA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 148TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, appellant Domingo Hector Moya

pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance,

namely methamphetamine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams.

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c). The trial court placed him on deferred

adjudication community supervision for four years. The State filed a motion to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms of community supervision. Appellant pleaded

“true” to the State’s allegations that he violated the terms of community supervision by

failing to report to the community supervision corrections department in April, May, and

July 2024, pay the monthly supervision fees, participate in mental health services,

observe curfew, and report to weekend jail sanctions. The trial court found the State’s

allegations to be “true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated appellant

guilty, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We

affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief

meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation

showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

2 counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) notified

appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant

with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file a pro se

response,1 to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek discretionary

review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form

motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature

and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we 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). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

no arguable reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the

issues raised in the brief 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.”);

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed

a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

1 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3 at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no

pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing

the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion

to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is

frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.2 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206

S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 31st day of July, 2025.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.