Opinion
No. 05-10-00065-CR
Opinion Filed October 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-56445-VY.
Before Justices MORRIS, O'NEILL, and FILLMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Julian Gallegos pleaded guilty before a jury to theft of property less than $1,500 enhanced by two prior theft convictions. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the jury assessed punishment at twenty-two months confinement in state jail. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.