Opinion
Nos. 05-05-00408-CR, 05-05-00409-CR, 05-05-00410-CR, 05-05-00411-CR, 05-05-00412-CR, 05-05-00413-CR, 05-05-00414-CR, 05-05-00415-CR, 05-05-00416-CR, 05-05-00417-CR, 05-05-00418-CR
Opinion issued November 7, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F97-75866-PT, F97-75867-PT, F97-76315-WT, F97-76316-WT, F97-76317-WT, F97-76318-WT, F97-76319-WT, F97-76320-WT, F97-76400-WT, F97-76401-WT, F97-76402-WT. Affirmed.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FITZGERALD, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Vanna Peter You pleaded guilty to eleven counts of aggravated robbery. The trial judge deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt, placed him on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a fine of $100. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging he violated several conditions of community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at eleven years' imprisonment. Appellant's attorney filed a brief concluding 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. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 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.