Opinion
Nos. 09-09-00496-CR, 09-09-00497-CR, 09-09-00498-CR
Submitted on November 18, 2010.
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas, Trial Cause Nos. CR27616, CR27617, CR27654.
Before GAULTNEY, KREGER, and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charlotte Lynn Redmond pled guilty in three consolidated cases to aggravated assault of a peace officer, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02, 46.04 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2010). After hearing evidence, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years confinement for the third degree felony and sixty years on each first degree felony, sentences to run concurrently. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 12.34 (West Supp. 2010). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Redmond's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel's brief presents his professional evaluation of the record that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Redmond with a copy of the brief. In response, Redmond filed a pro se brief, raising two issues on appeal. The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In these circumstances, we "may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. (citations omitted). We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with Redmond's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Redmond's appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Because the amendments do not change our analysis, we refer to the current versions of these statutes.
Redmond may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68.