Opinion
No. 14-08-00727-CR
Opinion filed May 21, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 114th District Court, Wood County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 13,785-93.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices ANDERSON and SEYMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a guilty plea to murder. After a pre-sentence investigation, on November 15, 1993, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $5,000. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the Twelfth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. See Anderson v. State, No. 12-93-00312-CR (Tex.App.-Tyler Jun. 29, 1994, no pet.). The Court of Criminal Appeals' granted appellant's application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus and ordered that appellant was entitled to file an out-of-time appeal. See Ex Parte Anderson, No. AP-75,942 (Tex.Crim.App. Jun. 18, 2008) (not designated for publication). Appellant then filed a pro se notice of appeal, and this appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to a docket equalization order from the Texas Supreme Court.. 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, and appellant has 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. Appellant's motion to dismiss the underlying case, which was carried with the appeal, is denied.