Clayton Louis Carter v. the State of Texas

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

1
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

1
Carter may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
2
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.

3