Claudia Ann Carlton v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00079-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00079-CR ________________

CLAUDIA ANN CARLTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00776 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Claudia Ann Carlton of the first-degree felony offense of

aggravated assault on a public servant with an affirmative deadly weapon finding.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a), (b)(2)(B). The jury assessed punishment at

eleven years of confinement, and the trial court sentenced her accordingly.

Carlton’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is

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

1 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 23, 2024, after Carlton’s counsel filed the

Anders brief, we granted an extension for Carlton to file a pro se brief, but Carlton

filed no response.

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 and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s evaluation that no arguable

issues support the 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 13, 2025 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2