Bart Thomas Moore v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00223-CR
__________________

BART THOMAS MOORE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR21-0092
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Bart Thomas Moore (“Appellant” or

“Moore”) for failure to give information and render aid after an accident resulting in

serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B). Moore

pleaded “not guilty,” but a jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of failure to

give information and render aid after an accident resulting in bodily injury. After a

hearing on punishment, the jury found the two alleged enhancements for prior felony

convictions “true” and assessed punishment at eighty years of confinement. See Tex.

1
Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (penalties for repeat or habitual offenders); Tex. Transp.

Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(2).

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Moore to file a pro se brief, and Moore filed a pro

se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and also a pro se brief, the appellate court has two choices. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine

that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has

reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that

arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new

counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We do not address the merits of

each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have determined there

are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court 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) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

2
the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Moore’s pro se brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28

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

the issues raised in the briefs 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.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on February 1, 2024
Opinion Delivered February 7, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1
Moore may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3