In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00308-CR __________________ ELTON MACK MAXIE JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20557 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Elton Mack Maxie Jr. with murder, a first-degree felony.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02. Although Maxie initially pleaded “not guilty,” he changed his plea to “guilty” during trial prior to the State resting its case. The trial court accepted Maxie’s “guilty” plea and found him guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment. After hearing evidence on punishment, the jury returned a verdict of guilty rejecting Maxie’s special issue of sudden passion, and the jury assessed

punishment at life in prison. The judgment reflects that the trial court sentenced Maxie in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Maxie timely filed an appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Maxie to file a pro se brief, and Maxie filed a pro se response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and also a pro se brief, the 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. We do not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

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 record, counsel’s brief, and Maxie’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

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.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on June 17, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 18, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

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