1 In The 

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

__________________ NO . 09
- 22
- 00223
- CR

__________________ BART THOMAS MOORE , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 2 58th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR21
- 0092

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Bart Thomas Moore (“Appellant” or
“Moore ”) for failure to give information and render aid after an accident resulting in serious bodily injury

. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B)

. Moore pleaded “ not guilty , ” but a jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of failure to give information and render aid after an accident resulting in bodily injury

. After a hearing on punishment, the jury found the two alleged enhancements for prior felony convictions “true” and asse ssed punishment at eight y years of confinement

. See Tex.2 Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (penalties for repeat or habitual offenders) ; Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(2). On appeal, Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has rev iewed 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 Moore to file a pro se brief , and Moore 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 also a pro se brief, the 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 rever sible 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. We do not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pr o se brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination 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 reviewed3 the entire record , counsel’s brief, and Moore’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 827

- 28 (“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. C f. 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 February 1 , 202 4 Opinion Delivered February 7, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1 Moore 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.