Opinion
No. 14-10-00331-CR
Opinion filed May 19, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 176th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1128965.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggregate theft of over $200,000. After a pre-sentence investigation report, on March 4, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and ordered that restitution be paid. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and 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). On April 26, 2011, 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 that 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.