Full Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00221-CR ——————————— TORAY LAMONT MOORE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 19738 MEMORANDUM OPINION Toray Lamont Moore pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon1 and entered into a plea agreement under which the trial court placed him on deferred 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(1). adjudication community supervision for six years. In April 2024, the State moved to adjudicate Moore’s guilt, alleging he had violated multiple terms of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated Moore guilty, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.2 Moore timely appealed. Moore’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Further, Moore’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Moore and informed him of his right to 2 See id. §§ 12.33, 22.02(a)(1), (b). 2 access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.3 Moore did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.4 The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Chris M. Dillon must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of 3 Subsequently, this Court also notified Moore at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 4 He did, however, file a 10-page letter in connection with his motion to access the record. 5 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Moore of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 3 this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4