Bart Thomas Moore v. The State of Texas Appeal from 258th District Court of Polk County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. 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 1
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.
