In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00061-CR __________________ JACK HERBERT THOMAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-05-06211 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Jack Herbert Thomas appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Thomas in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Thomas by filing an Anders brief. 2

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(e).

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the brief, Thomas’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in Thomas’s appeal. 3 The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Thomas’s attorney explains why, under the record in Thomas’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Thomas’s attorney also represents that he sent Thomas a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Thomas, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before August 27, 2025. Thomas filed a pro se brief on September 9, 2025.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. 5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, the attorney’s brief, and the pro se brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support the appeal. 6 Thus, it

See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (generally).

See Anders, 368 U.S. at 744.

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).

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.”). follows the appeal is frivolous. 7 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.8 The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice Submitted on October 31, 2025 Opinion Delivered November 12, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Id. at 826-27.

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Thomas may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.