Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00720-CR, 05-04-00721-CR
Opinion Filed October 12, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F01-51212-VR, F01-73899-VR. Affirm.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Claude Henry Miller entered negotiated guilty pleas to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph in each case. Pursuant to the plea agreements, the trial judge deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years' community supervision, and assessed a $750 fine in each case. Over the next three years, the State moved to adjudicate appellant's guilt on several occasions and the trial court modified the conditions of appellant's supervision. The trial court ultimately adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment in each case. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are 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 he has a right to file a pro se response, but appellant did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. We affirm the trial court's judgments.