Opinion
NO. 14-19-00900-CR
05-27-2021
JESUS VASQUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1591185
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by assigning issues that might arguably support the appeal, and explaining why those issues do not raise arguable error. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On December 7, 2020, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 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).
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).