Opinion
No. 14-08-01083-CR
Opinion filed August 20, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1148120.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, GUZMAN, and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. On April 7, 2008, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. The trial court conducted a hearing and found true the allegations in the State's motion. The trial court adjudicated guilt and on November 14, 2008, sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes this 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, 811-12 (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, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed 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. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. 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). The judgment incorrectly reflects appellant pled true to the motion to adjudicate guilt. Accordingly, we reform the judgment of conviction to reflect appellant did not enter a plea of true to the motion to adjudicate. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as reformed.