Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jevon Devonte Moreland pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and entered a plea agreement under which the trial court placed him on deferred-adjudication community supervision for six years.
In May 2025, the State moved to adjudicate Moreland’s guilt, alleging multiple violations of his community-supervision conditions. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison. Moreland appealed.
Moreland’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief stating that the record disclosed no reversible error and that the appeal was frivolous. Counsel notified Moreland of his right to access the record and file a pro se response, but Moreland filed none. The State waived a response.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire appellate record and concluded that it contained no reversible error or arguable grounds for review. The court therefore determined that Moreland’s appeal was frivolous.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. It directed counsel to provide the required notice, dismissed all other pending motions as moot, and noted that Moreland could independently seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record rather than rely solely on counsel’s assessment.
- The court found no arguable basis to challenge the adjudication of guilt or the five-year prison sentence.
- Although counsel was permitted to withdraw, counsel remained obligated to inform Moreland of the appeal’s outcome and his ability to pursue discretionary review.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. Counsel must professionally evaluate the record and notify the defendant of the right to review the record and respond, while the appellate court retains responsibility for deciding whether any arguable issue exists.