Opinion
Nos. 05-10-01033-CR, 05-10-01034-CR, 05-10-01035-CR
Opinion issued April 29, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-54213-T, F10-54214-T, F10-54413-T.
Before Chief Justice WRIGHT and Justices FRANCIS and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Scott Parris appeals his convictions for theft of property, assault on a public servant, and evading arrest or detention. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment for the assault conviction, ten years' imprisonment for the theft conviction, and two years' confinement in a state jail facility for the evading arrest conviction. On appeal, 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 records 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 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.