In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00393-CR ________________ FLORENCIO CASTILLO GUILLEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCCR0324 ______________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Appellant Florencio Castillo Guillen guilty of the first-degree felony offense of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (c). The jury assessed Guillen’s punishment at fifty years of imprisonment.

Guillen’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 March 6, 2025, we granted an extension of time for Guillen to file a pro se brief, but Guillen did not file a response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings 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 nothing that would arguably support the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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.

JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on June 9, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 25, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Guillen 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. 68.1