Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00483-CR __________________ DEMARCUS MALIK ROUSSER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A240379-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant DeMarcus Malik Rousser 1 (“Appellant” or “Rousser”) for evading arrest or detention, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). In an open plea agreement, Rousser pleaded “guilty” to the offense and waived a jury trial. After a pre-sentence investigation was 1 It is unclear from the record whether Appellant’s first name is spelled “DeMarcus” or “Demarcus.” We find his name spelled both ways in the record before us. 1 completed and after a hearing, the trial court sentenced Rousser to eight years in prison. Rousser timely appealed. On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed 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 Rousser to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Rousser. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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 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 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on October 27, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 28, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 2 Rousser may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court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. 3