In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00025-CR ________________ TERRANCE TYVEONE WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 88th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24315 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Appellant Terrance Tyveone Williams pled guilty to the first- degree felony offense of felony murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(3).

Williams elected to have the jury assess punishment, and they assessed fifty-two years of confinement.

Williams’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that 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). After Williams’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Williams to file a pro se response. Williams filed a pro se brief in which he complains that: (1) the trial court erred by allowing his “involuntary” video recorded confession to be used against him; (2) the trial court erred by allowing an “all white” jury to sentence him; and (3) his counsel was ineffective.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a later-filed pro se response, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. . . . Or, it may determine 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. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s pro se brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. 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 January 25, 2023 Opinion Delivered February 8, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1Williams may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.