Marcus Latrell James, Jr. v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00235-CR

NO. 09-25-00236-CR

NO. 09-25-00237-CR

________________

MARCUS LATRELL JAMES JR., Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 24-07-10539, 24-07-10540, 24-07-10541

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marcus Latrell James Jr. pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle in trial cause number 24-07-10539, the first-degree felony offense of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in an amount greater than or equal to four grams but less than 200 grams in trial cause number 24-07-10540, and the state jail felony offense of abandoning or endangering a child in trial cause number 24-07-10541. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

2

§§ 22.041(c), (f) (abandoning or endangering a child), 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (evading arrest or detention); see also Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance). James elected to have the trial court assess punishment without a sentencing recommendation from the State. The trial court found James guilty and sentenced him to two years of confinement in trial cause number 24-07-10539, fifteen years of confinement in trial cause number 24- 07-10540, and two years of confinement in trial cause number 24-07-10541, with the sentences to run concurrently.

James’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 27, 2025, we notified James that he could file a pro se brief and the deadline for doing so. James has not filed a response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se response. 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. (citation omitted).

3

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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 judgments. 1 AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on August 17, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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