CourtListener 10869091•Windell Moris, Jr. v. the State of Texas
Full text
In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-25-00099-CR
WINDELL MORIS, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23-0387X
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Windell Moris, Jr., discovered text messages suggesting that his girlfriend, Camri
Johnson, had been unfaithful, and he confronted her about them when she came home. Moris
repeatedly stabbed Johnson with a kitchen knife. Moris entered an open plea of guilty to murder
and elected to be sentenced by a jury. The jury was given the option to find that Johnson’s
murder was the result of sudden passion, and in the event of such a finding, to assess Moris’s
punishment of not less than two years, nor more than twenty. The jury found that Johnson’s
murder was not the result of sudden passion. The jury assessed Moris’s punishment as life in
prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (Supp). Moris appeals.
Moris’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, asserting that the
appeal is without merit and that no reversible error appears in the record. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have conducted an independent review of the entire record
and the Anders brief. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Moris’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found
no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief outlines the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence presented during the trial court proceedings.
Since Moris’s appellate counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the
requirements of Anders. Anders, 386 U.S. at 743–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Moris’s appellate counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to
withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
2
On September 10, 2025, appellate counsel mailed to Moris copies of the brief, the motion
to withdraw, and the appellate record. Moris was informed of his right to review the record and
file a pro se response.
By order dated October 2, 2025, this Court informed Moris that his pro se response was
due on or before November 17, 2025. On December 9, 2024, we further informed Moris that the
case would be set for submission on December 30, 2025. We received neither a pro se response
from Moris nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In the Anders context, once we determine that no reversible error exists, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
Jeff Rambin
Justice
Date Submitted: December 30, 2025
Date Decided: May 28, 2026
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P.
68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.4.
3
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.