Opinion
No. 14-07-00731-CR
Opinion filed April 16, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1069821.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, GUZMAN, and SULLIVAN.
SUBSTITUTE MEMORANDUM OPINION
On its own motion, the court withdraws the opinion issued March 12, 2009, and issues this substitute opinion. After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child. On August 22, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On January 9, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief. 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.