In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00262-CR ________________ THOMAS LEON KINDLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25171 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, Appellant Thomas Leon Kindle was convicted of one count of sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child by contact, both second degree felonies. 1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. §§ 22.011; 21.11. The

1Originally, the State charged Kindle with continuous sexual assault of a child but abandoned the language in the indictment necessary for continuous sexual assault of a child. jury assessed his punishment at twenty years incarceration for each count, and the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Kindle’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). On January 16, 2025, after Kindle’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Kindle to file a pro se brief. Kindle did not file a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief, 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. 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 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. 2 AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice Submitted on May 30, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

2Kindle may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.