Opinion
No. 14-09-00488-CR
Opinion filed April 1, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1206944.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, SEYMORE, and BROWN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the offense of delivery of less than one gram of cocaine. On May 21, 2009, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 March 1, 2010, 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.