Date: 09-14-2016

Case Style:

Case Number: 03-15-00338-CR

Judge: David Puryear

Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Joshua D. Presley

Defendant's Attorney:

Susan Schoon

Description: Jeffrey Ryan Moore was charged with the trafficking of a child and with compelling
the prostitution of a child. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 20A.02(a)(7) (specifying that person commits
offense if he “knowingly . . . traffics a child and by any means causes the trafficked child to engage
in, or become the victim of, conduct prohibited by” statute governing compelling prostitution), (b)(1)
(explaining that offense is first-degree felony if conduct involves compelling prostitution “regardless
of whether the actor knows the age of the child at the time the actor commits the offense”),
43.05(a)(2) (providing that person commits offense if he “knowingly . . . causes by any means a child
younger than 18 years to commit prostitution, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the
child at the time the actor commits the offense”), (b) (stating that offense is first-degree felony). At
the end of the guilt-or-innocence phase, the jury determined that Moore was guilty of both counts.
Moore elected to have the district court determine his punishment in the event that the jury found
him guilty. At the end of the punishment phase, the district court determined that Moore should be
sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment for each count and rendered its judgments of conviction
accordingly. See id. § 12.32 (listing permissible punishment range for first-degree felony). Moore
appeals the district court’s judgments of conviction.
Moore’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief
concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988)
(explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel
in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).
Moore’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to
Moore; advised Moore of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue
discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Moore with
a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court.
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Moore requested and received
the appellate record and filed a pro se brief. In addition, Moore has requested the appointment of
another attorney.

Outcome:

We have independently reviewed the record and Moore’s pro se brief and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the district court’s judgments of conviction.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

Texas Department of Corrections Offender Info