In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00355-CR __________________

MARVIN GABRIEL HOLMES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F21-37984 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Marvin Gabriel Holmes guilty of evading arrest or detention with previous convictions, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(A). The jury assessed Holmes’s punishment as a prior felony offender at six years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.425(b).

Holmes’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 5, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Holmes to file a pro se brief. Holmes filed a pro se brief in response.

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[;] [o]r, 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. (citations omitted).

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 (Tex. 1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Holmes’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 826–27. 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Submitted on June 5, 2024 Opinion Delivered June 19, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1Holmes may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.