Windell Moris, Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: May 28, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00099-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00099-CR

WINDELL MORIS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-0387X

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin MEMORANDUM OPINION

Windell Moris, Jr., discovered text messages suggesting that his girlfriend, Camri

Johnson, had been unfaithful, and he confronted her about them when she came home. Moris

repeatedly stabbed Johnson with a kitchen knife. Moris entered an open plea of guilty to murder

and elected to be sentenced by a jury. The jury was given the option to find that Johnson’s

murder was the result of sudden passion, and in the event of such a finding, to assess Moris’s

punishment of not less than two years, nor more than twenty. The jury found that Johnson’s

murder was not the result of sudden passion. The jury assessed Moris’s punishment as life in

prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (Supp). Moris appeals.

Moris’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, asserting that the

appeal is without merit and that no reversible error appears in the record. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have conducted an independent review of the entire record

and the Anders brief. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Moris’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found

no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief outlines the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence presented during the trial court proceedings.

Since Moris’s appellate counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the

requirements of Anders. Anders, 386 U.S. at 743–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). Moris’s appellate counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to

withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

2 On September 10, 2025, appellate counsel mailed to Moris copies of the brief, the motion

to withdraw, and the appellate record. Moris was informed of his right to review the record and

file a pro se response.

By order dated October 2, 2025, this Court informed Moris that his pro se response was

due on or before November 17, 2025. On December 9, 2024, we further informed Moris that the

case would be set for submission on December 30, 2025. We received neither a pro se response

from Moris nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no

reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that no reversible error exists, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: December 30, 2025 Date Decided: May 28, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3