A ffirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________ NO. 14-07-00731-CR ____________ ARTHUR CHASE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1069821
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of indecency with a child. On August 22, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders 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. S ee 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. S ee Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. On January 9, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, 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 A nders b rief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. S ee Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). A ccordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Guzman, and Sullivan. D o Not Publish — T EX. R . A PP. P . 47.2(b).
2
