Opinion
No. 05-10-01554-CR
Opinion Filed October 13, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F06-64082-U.
Before Justices FitzGERALD, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Andre Demaudrio Reese waived a jury, pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for five years, and a $1,000 fine. Later, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. On appeal, appellant's attorney 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 (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. Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. However, a court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the Court'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. Id. After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, 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.
The reporter's record for the plea hearing was ordered but not filed.