Gaige Porter v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued April 7, 2026




                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                               NO. 01-24-00766-CR
                           ———————————
                         GAIGE PORTER, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                   On Appeal from the 184th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1727967


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In 2021, Appellant Gaige Porter pled guilty to aggravated assault of a family

member and entered into a plea agreement under which the trial court placed him

on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. In 2024, the State

moved to adjudicate Porter’s guilt, alleging he had violated multiple terms of his
community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion,

adjudicated Porter guilty, and sentenced him to fourteen years in prison. Porter

timely appealed.

      Porter’s appointed appellate counsel has 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 frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967).

      In her brief, counsel states that she 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 the Court with references to the record and legal authorities.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978).

      Further, Porter’s counsel certified to this Court that she mailed a copy of the

motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Porter and informed him of his rights to

access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. This

Court also notified Porter at his last known address of his rights to access the


                                         2
record and file a response, and it provided Porter with a form motion to access the

record. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321–22.

      Porter did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and the State

waived its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

      We have independently reviewed the entire record.          See Mitchell, 193

S.W.3d at 155. 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—not counsel—determines,

after full examination of the 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).

      However, we reform the trial court’s written judgment to conform to its oral

pronouncement of its findings at the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate

guilt. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court orally pronounced that it

found the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Porter violated

the terms of his community supervision in three ways: contacting the complainant,

traveling out of state without permission, and removing his ankle-monitoring

device. But the trial court’s written judgment states that the basis for its decision

to grant the State’s motion was its finding that “Defendant did then and there




                                           3
violate terms and conditions of community supervision by committing an offense

against the state of Texas on or about 03/07/2024.”

       We are authorized to reform the trial court’s written judgment to reflect the

findings it pronounced orally. See Mazloum v. State, 772 S.W.2d 131, 131–32

(Tex. Crim. App. 1989); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Orozco v. State, No. 01-

25-00088-CR, 2025 WL 2956238, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21,

2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[A]ppellate courts are

authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in Anders cases involving

non-reversible error.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we reform the judgment to reflect the trial court’s finding that Porter

violated the terms of his community supervision by contacting the complainant,

traveling out of state without permission, and removing his ankle-monitoring

device.

       We affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed and grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). Appointed counsel still has a duty to

inform Porter 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, 178

S.W.3d at 827. 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.


                                         4
      Attorney Angela Cameron must immediately send the required notice and

file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).




                                           5