Opinion issued August 6, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-25-00818-CR
JEVON DEVONTE MORELAND, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1778954
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jevon Devonte Moreland pled guilty to aggravated robbery1 and entered into
a plea agreement under which the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a)(2).
community supervision for six years. In May 2025, the State moved to adjudicate
Moreland’s guilt, alleging he had violated multiple terms of his community
supervision. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated
Moreland guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison.2 Moreland timely
appealed.
Moreland’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, Moreland’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the
motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Moreland and informed him of his right to
2
See id. §§ 12.32(a), 29.03(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
Moreland did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.
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.4 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney James F. Pons must immediately
send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
3
Subsequently, this Court also notified Moreland 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
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Moreland 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
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4