1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09
- 21
- 00229
- CR

__________________ MARCUS NEAL MEADOWS, A ppellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19
- 08
- 10586
- CR

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant M arcus Neal Meadows ( “ Appellant” or “Meadows”) for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and the indictment also alleged that during the commission of the offense or immediate flight therefrom Meadows used or exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a vehicle

. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 38.04(b)(2). The State provided Meadows with notice of its intent to enhance punishment based on two enhancement paragraphs. Meadows elected to have a jury determine the special issue of whether he used or exhibited a vehicle as a deadly2 weapon , and Meadows elected to have the jury assess punishment

. In the jury’s
presence, Meadows pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle and pleaded “true” to t h e two enhancements for felony convictions

. After hearing evidence on the special issue at the punishment phase of the trial , t he jury found Meadows guilty and found the enhancements to be true , the jury found that Meadows used or exhibited a deadly weapon , and the trial court accepted the verdict. The jury assessed punishment at forty

- five years of confinement. Meadows filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, b ased 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 extension s of time for Meadows to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Meadows. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record of all the proceedings 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 natu re of Anders briefs, by indicating in the3 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.”) Therefo re, 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
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on July 6, 2022 Opinion Delivered July 13, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 Meadows may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.