Opinion
No. 14-08-00523-CR
Opinion filed August 20, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 232nd Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1009966.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices SEYMORE and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for ten years, but recommended that the sentence be suspended and appellant be placed on community supervision for ten years. On January 18, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the jury's recommendation. This court affirmed appellant's conviction. See Roberts v. State, No. 14-06-00076-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 7, 2007, no pet.) (not designated for publication). On December 10, 2007, the State moved to revoke appellant's probation. Appellant signed a Stipulation of Evidence, in which he agreed that he violated the conditions of his probation, and he entered a plea of true to the motion to revoke. On June 17, 2008, the trial court signed a judgment revoking appellant's community supervision and sentenced appellant to confinement for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders 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. See 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. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days has elapsed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief 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 Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.