Marvin Gabriel Holmes v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00355-CR
__________________

MARVIN GABRIEL HOLMES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F21-37984
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Marvin Gabriel Holmes guilty of evading arrest or detention

with previous convictions, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a),

(b)(1)(A). The jury assessed Holmes’s punishment as a prior felony offender at six

years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.425(b).

1
Holmes’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On April 5, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Holmes to

file a pro se brief. Holmes 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. (citations omitted).

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 (Tex. 1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the

entire record, counsel’s brief, and Holmes’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

2
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 June 5, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 19, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1Holmes may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
3