Shonda Lee Moxley v. The State of Texas Appeal from 432nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00432-CR NO. 02-15-00433-CR SHONDA LEE MOXLEY APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 1412917D, 1414818D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Shonda Lee Moxley entered open pleas of guilty to two cases of theft of property valued at less than $1500. She also pleaded true to the State’s two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court sentenced her to four years’ incarceration in each case. These appeals followed. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Moxley’s court-appointed, appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Moxley of his motion to withdraw, provided her a copy of the motion and brief, informed her of her right to file a pro se response, informed her of her right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeals are frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate Moxley’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court also informed Moxley that she could file a pro se response to her counsel’s brief, but she elected instead to send a letter stating that she would not be pursing this appeal any further. The State did not submit a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 2 We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit—we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a). /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: December 15, 2016 3
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.
