Jaden James Allen Moon v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00291-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 02-24-00291-CR ___________________________

JADEN JAMES ALLEN MOON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR14615

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

In May 2023, as part of a plea bargain, Appellant Jaden James Allen Moon

pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and the trial

court deferred his adjudication, placed him on community supervision for ten years,

and granted the State’s motion to dismiss additional charges against him. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 21.11. In October 2023, the State filed its motion to proceed to

adjudication and alleged that Moon had violated nine conditions of his community

supervision. The trial court held a hearing at which Moon pleaded true to each

allegation. The trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, found

Moon guilty, and sentenced him to imprisonment for sixteen years in the institutional

division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.33

(“Second Degree Felony Punishment”). Moon appealed.

Moon’s court-appointed appellate attorney, after determining that the appeal was

frivolous, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellate

counsel’s motion and brief meet the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.

See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, complying with Kelly v. State, counsel

provided Moon with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw; she informed him of

his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review

pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous; and she sent him a form motion

2 for pro se access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014). Moon had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did

not do so. The State declined to file a brief.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Nothing in the record arguably

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

see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Although our review of the record revealed no reversible error, we discovered

that a fine reflected in the trial court’s bill of costs issued November 15, 2024, is

improper. Thus, the bill of costs requires modification. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d

725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Mitchell v. State, 653 S.W.3d 295, 297

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2022 no pet.).

The bill of costs reflects that Moon owes a total of $2,680. The bill of costs lists

a line item labeled “CRFINE Criminal Fine Fee,” amounting to $1,500. This appears

to be intended to reflect a criminal fine imposed by the trial court. However, the trial

court did not impose a fine on Moon in pronouncing its judgment in open court, and

the written Judgment Adjudicating Guilt lists the fine as “N/A,” also indicating that no

fine was imposed. The Order to Withdraw Funds reflects the total incurred amount of

court costs, fees, fines, and restitution as $1,180. Subtracting the improper line item

from the bill of costs yields the same amount owed as that in the order withdrawing

funds—$1,180.

3 Because no fine was imposed upon adjudication of guilt, we strike from the trial

court’s bill of costs line item “CRFINE Criminal Fine Fee,” to comport with the

judgment and order of the trial court. See Demopoulos v. State, No. 02-23-00144-CR, 2024

WL 3712848, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 8, 2024, no pet.).

Except for the improper item in the bill of costs discussed above, we agree with

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Having modified the bill

of costs to delete the improper line item “CRFINE Criminal Fine Fee,” we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm-as-modified the trial court’s judgment.

See Bray, 179 S.W.3d at 726.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

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

Delivered: June 26, 2025