In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00333-CR ________________ SABASTION ELEAZAR PERKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27654 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Sabastion Eleazar Perkins was charged with sexual assault, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011. A jury found Perkins guilty and assessed his punishment at sixteen years of confinement. This appeal followed.

Perkins’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). After Perkins’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Perkins to file a pro se response. Perkins has not filed a response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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 appellate record and counsel’s brief and have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827- (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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.

JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on June 6, 2024 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

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