Background
Albert Lee Moore III pleaded guilty to third-degree-felony bail jumping and failure to appear. Under a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years beginning May 15, 2019.
The State later moved to adjudicate Moore’s guilt, alleging that he repeatedly failed to report, failed to pay required fees, failed to submit an income-tax return, and failed to perform community-service hours. Moore pleaded “true” to every allegation. The trial court found all allegations true, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to seven years in prison.
Moore’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding that the record presented no meritorious or arguable appellate grounds. Moore did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
After independently reviewing the record, the Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the appeal lacked arguable merit. Moore’s pleas of “true” were independently sufficient to support revocation, and proof of even one community-supervision violation would have supported the trial court’s decision. The court therefore upheld the adjudication of guilt and seven-year sentence.
The court nevertheless found two nonreversible errors in the written judgment and bill of costs. It deleted a $3,000 fine because the trial court had not orally pronounced a fine when sentencing Moore after adjudication; the oral pronouncement controlled over the conflicting written judgment. It also deleted the time-payment fee without prejudice because an appeal suspends the payment clock, making assessment of that fee before thirty days after issuance of the appellate mandate premature.
The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s plea of “true” to a community-supervision violation, standing alone, can support revocation and adjudication of guilt.
- A fine included in a deferred-adjudication order does not carry forward automatically after adjudication; if the court does not orally pronounce the fine at sentencing, it cannot appear in the written judgment.
- A time-payment fee assessed while an appeal is pending is premature and must be deleted without prejudice to later assessment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that an Anders review may reveal correctable judgment and cost errors even when no arguable basis exists to challenge the adjudication or prison sentence. Appellate courts may reform the judgment and bill of costs to conform to the oral sentence and statutory timing requirements.
For practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of comparing the oral sentencing pronouncement with the written judgment and examining whether payment-related fees were assessed before appellate proceedings concluded.