In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00049-CR __________________ ALFONSO GONZALEZ VALDEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-05-07030-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Alfonso Gonzalez Valdez (“Appellant” or “Valdez”) for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.02(a)(2). Valdez pleaded “not guilty” to the offense, but a jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Valdez to fifteen years of confinement. Valdez timely filed his 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 Valdez to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Valdez.

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 and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an 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

Valdez 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.

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on September 30, 2025 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.