In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00077-CR __________________ JUSTIN AUGUSTUS STEPHENS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-07-07969-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Justin Augustus Stephens guilty of evading arrest or detention with a previous conviction and assessed Stephens’s punishment at two years of confinement in state jail. Stephens’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

On September 7, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Stephens to file a pro se brief. Stephens filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on December 21, 2021 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1Stephens may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.