DETRICK ASHLEY BROWN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion issued November 18, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-01015-CR
No. 05-09-01016-CR
 
............................
DETRICK ASHLEY BROWN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 380-81219-05, 380-81220-05
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Fillmore
Opinion By Chief Justice Wright
        A jury convicted Detrick Ashley Brown of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age and indecency with a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2010). The trial court assessed punishment at fifty years' and fifteen years' imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.   See Footnote 1  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 appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          CAROLYN WRIGHT
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
091015F.U05
 
Footnote 1 Counsel notes, among other things, that the evidence in these cases is both legally and factually sufficient to support the convictions. The court of criminal appeals recent decision in Brooks v. State, No. PD-0210-09, 2010 WL 3894613, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (plurality op.), concluded the Jackson v. Virginia legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing court should apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support each element of a criminal offense that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.