In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00237-CR NO. 09-24-00238-CR NO. 09-24-00239-CR ________________

JOSHUA LEE TREVINO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 27824, 27825, and 28631 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Joshua Lee Trevino for three counts of assault of a public servant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(1). Trevino waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to all three offenses. Although the offenses charged are third-degree felonies, Trevino’s prior felony convictions enhance his punishment to second-degree felonies, with a penalty range of two to twenty years.

See id.; see also id. § 12.42(a). The trial court sentenced Trevino to serve nine years of confinement on two charges concurrently. On his third charge, the trial court sentenced Trevino to serve nine years of confinement and ordered that it will run consecutively. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.08(a). Trevino received credit for time served.

Trevino’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concluding that the appeal is frivolous; he also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 20, 2025, after Trevino’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Trevino to file a pro se brief. Trevino did not file a pro se brief in 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 have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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 judgments. 1 AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 20, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

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