Opinion
No. 14-08-00136-CR
Opinion filed January 15, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1039905.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices ANDERSON and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of possession with intent to deliver at least 400 grams of methamphetamine. On February 12, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The record was provided to appellant and he was granted an extension of time to file his pro se response. As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed since appellant was provided the record, and appellant has filed no pro se response or request for further extension of time. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.