Opinion
NO. 14-12-00602-CR
11-29-2012
DOUGLAS MATTHEW JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR11045
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to fraudulent use of identifying information. In exchange for his guilty plea he received 5 years' deferred adjudication probation. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate. Appellant entered a plea of true to the grounds listed in the motion to adjudicate. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and assessed punishment at 22 months' confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely 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 requirements 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, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days has passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 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.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and McCally. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).