Opinion
No. 14-08-00769-CR
Opinion filed August 20, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 337th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 980471.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty without an agreed recommendation on punishment to possession with intent to deliver more than 400 grams of cocaine. Appellant also pled true to the enhancement alleged in the indictment. The trial court made an affirmative deadly weapon finding, and on April 20, 2004, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the conviction. See Castro v. State, No. 14-04-00411-CR, (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 16, 2006, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Appellant now appeals the July 7, 2008, denial of his request for post-conviction DNA testing. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement 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 (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). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On May 26, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief. Appellant supplemented his response with additional exhibits on June 8, 2009. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response, 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.