Terrance Jermaine Moore v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 28, 2012
Docket10-11-00418-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Terrance Jermaine Moore v. State (Terrance Jermaine Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Terrance Jermaine Moore v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00418-CR

TERRANCE JERMAINE MOORE, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-01511-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terrance Moore was found guilty of state-jail felony theft and sentenced to

eighteen months in state jail. Moore appealed.

Moore’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Moore filed a pro se response to the Anders brief, but we find that

1 Counsel identified two potential issues but concludes that Moore could not show harm. We agree. it does not raise any potentially arguable issues.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Moore a

copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Moore’s last known

address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Moore of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon

counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by “a letter [to

this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2012 Do not publish [CR25]

Moore v. State Page 2

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)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ex Parte Owens
206 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Terrance Jermaine Moore v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrance-jermaine-moore-v-state-texapp-2012.