Patricia Danielle Moffett v. The State of Texas Appeal from 100th District Court of Donley County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00100-CR PATRICIA DANIELLE MOFFETT, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Donley County, Texas Trial Court No. 3768, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding October 15, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Patricia Danielle Moffett, appeals her conviction for forgery. Appellant pled guilty. The trial court deferred the adjudication of her guilt and placed her on community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, which motion the trial court granted after an evidentiary hearing. Appellant was then sentenced to eighteen months in a state jail facility, fined $2,500, and ordered to pay restitution. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief. In the brief, he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, no arguable issue appears meriting appeal. So too did he mail his client 1) a letter informing her of his conclusion and right to file her own brief or reply, 2) a copy of his brief, 3) a copy of his motion to withdraw, and 4) a copy of the appellate record. By letter, this court also notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by October 9, 2015, if she wished to do so. To date, no response has been received. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) potential due process violations, 3) the sentence and 4) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, he concluded that no arguable grounds for a meritorious appeal existed. We also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also failed to uncover arguable error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 Anders v. Califorina, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
