Livan Rios v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00321-CR

________________

LIVAN RIOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24-02-02474

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Livan Rios for the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). After a jury trial, the jury found Rios guilty and after a separate trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Rios to six years’ incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2

Rios’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concluding that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (outlining frivolous brief procedure in contested cases). On May 13, 2026, after Rios’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Rios to file a pro se brief in response by May 28, 2026. Rios has not filed a pro se brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “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.

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 have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.

3

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment. 1 0F

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS

Justice

Submitted on August 17, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Rios may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review.

1

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.