Elton MacK Maxie Jr. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00308-CR
__________________

ELTON MACK MAXIE JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20557
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Elton Mack Maxie Jr. with murder, a first-degree felony.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02. Although Maxie initially pleaded “not guilty,”

he changed his plea to “guilty” during trial prior to the State resting its case. The trial

court accepted Maxie’s “guilty” plea and found him guilty of the offense as charged

in the indictment. After hearing evidence on punishment, the jury returned a verdict

of guilty rejecting Maxie’s special issue of sudden passion, and the jury assessed

1
punishment at life in prison. The judgment reflects that the trial court sentenced

Maxie in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Maxie timely filed an appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered 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 Maxie to file a pro se brief, and Maxie filed a pro

se 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 reversible 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 pro 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 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

2
record, counsel’s brief, and Maxie’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. Cf. 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 June 17, 2025
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1
Maxie 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