In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00188-CR ________________ CLAYTON LOUIS CARTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27485 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Clayton Louis Carter pled guilty to the first-degree felony offense of murder.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (c). Clayton elected to have the jury assess punishment, and after a hearing, the jury assessed punishment at life in prison, assessed a $10,000 fine, and made an affirmative deadly weapon finding.

Carter’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that present 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 18, 2025, we granted an extension of time for Carter to file a pro se brief. Carter 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. 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, counsel’s brief, and Carter’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

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

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on May 23, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 25, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.