Opinion
Nos. 05-10-00870-CR, 05-10-00871-CR, 05-10-00872-CR
Opinion issued October 5, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-30199-Q, F09-30202-Q, F09-30205-Q.
Before Chief Justice WRIGHT and Justices FRANCIS and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nathan Allan Thompson waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of a public servant with a deadly weapon, evading arrest or detention, and deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a)(2), (b)(2)(B), 22.05(b), 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment for the aggravated assault, ten years' imprisonment for the deadly conduct, and two years' confinement in state jail for the evading arrest. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. However, a court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the Court's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Id. After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgments.