Opinion
No. 05-10-00430-CR
Opinion Filed November 16, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-15840-T.
Before Justices O'NEILL, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony Bernard Loftis appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes 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. 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 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.