Opinion
Nos. 05-10-01456-CR, 05-10-01457-CR, 05-10-01458-CR, 05-10-01459-CR
Opinion Filed October 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 429-82033-09, 429-82034-09, 429-82035-09, 429-82282-09.
Before Justices BRIDGES, RICHTER, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Miguel Angel Valdez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses and two engaging in organized criminal activity offenses. See Tex. Penal Code Ann002E §§ 29.03(a), 71.02(a) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty in each case, the trial court assessed punishment at eighteen years' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery convictions and two years' imprisonment for the organized criminal activity convictions. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he 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. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals'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). 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.