In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00079-CR ________________ CLAUDIA ANN CARLTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00776 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Claudia Ann Carlton of the first-degree felony offense of aggravated assault on a public servant with an affirmative deadly weapon finding.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B). The jury assessed punishment at eleven years of confinement, and the trial court sentenced her accordingly.

Carlton’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 1 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 23, 2024, after Carlton’s counsel filed the Anders brief, we granted an extension for Carlton to file a pro se brief, but Carlton filed no response.

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 agree with counsel’s evaluation that no arguable issues support the appeal. See 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.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 13, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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