Opinion
No. 09-07-102 CR
Submitted on January 25, 2008.
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH
On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 04-07-05428 CR.
Before GAULTNEY, KREGER, and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Stephen Paul Bordages of burglary of a habitation and indecency with a child by exposure. The trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison for the first offense, and two years for the second — the sentences to run concurrently. Bordages's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). In response, Bordages filed a pro se brief, in which he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, and that his statement to the police was involuntary. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[, ]" or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.