In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00269-CR ________________ JORGE PINEDA GUZMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00368 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Appellant Jorge Pineda Guzman guilty of the first-degree felony offense of aggravated assault family violence with a deadly weapon causing serious bodily injury. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2), (b)(1)(A). 1 The jury assessed Guzman’s punishment at life in prison and assessed a $10,000 fine.

We cite to the current version of the statute because the subsequent amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal.

On appeal, Guzman’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 April 9, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Guzman to file a pro se brief. Guzman filed a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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 determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the 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.2

Guzman may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on August 5, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 14, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.