In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00373-CR ________________ CASEY HIRAM VINES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR23-0266 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Casey Hiram Vines for the first-degree offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child, and he pled guilty. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). In an open plea, Vines elected to have the trial court assess punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to life. We will affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Vines’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concluding 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). On April 17, 2024, after Vines’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Vines to file a pro se brief in response. Vines has not filed a response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. 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. 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 and counsel’s brief, and 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W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on January 3, 2025 Opinion Delivered February 19, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

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