Opinion
No. 09-09-00536-CR
Submitted on April 4, 2011.
Opinion Delivered April 27, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 284th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 09-03-02709 CR.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Paul Joseph Zeedyk a/k/a Paul Zeedyk of felony driving while intoxicated. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2010). The trial court sentenced Zeedyk to thirty years of imprisonment, as a habitual offender. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42 (West Supp. 2010). Zeedyk filed this appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Zeedyk's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. 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). Zeedyk filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we 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). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]" or (2) "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. We have reviewed the record and determined that Zeedyk's appeal is wholly frivolous. After examining the clerk's record and the reporter's record, we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Zeedyk may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.