In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00193-CR
MOUSSA PEPOUNA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 16th District Court
Denton County, Texas1
Trial Court No. F24-2484-16, Honorable Sherry Shipman, Presiding
August 26, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Moussa Pepouna, was found guilty of sexual assault, a second-degree
felony. 2 In presenting this appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed
1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by
the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket-equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011.
a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charged offense. After a jury trial, he
was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years’ incarceration and a $10,000 fine. Appellant
then brought this appeal.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted
a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, it reflects no reversible error
upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel
notified him of the motion to withdraw; provided him with the motion, Anders brief, and a
copy of the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed
counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).
By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to
counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a
brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error
may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently
examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such
issues. 4 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we
conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of
Appellant’s conviction or sentence.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgment. 5
Judy C. Parker
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
4 Counsel seeks the deletion of the $305 in costs assessed against Appellant due to Appellant’s
indigent status; however, the costs are statutorily mandated regardless of indigency. See Weir v. State, 278 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (legislatively mandated court costs are not punitive in nature).
5 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
3