Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing filed December 21, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-05-00904-CR
____________
DANNY R. ALEJANDRO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 339th Criminal District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1026952
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E H E A R I N G
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in this case, cause number 1026952. In cause number 103546, appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation. On August 15, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant in each case to confinement for fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely, written notice of appeal in each case.[1]
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief met the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (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). No pro se response was filed. This court issued an opinion affirming appellant=s conviction in this cause on June 29, 2006, and we granted his appointed counsel=s motion to withdraw from representation. Appellant filed a pro se motion for rehearing, asserting that he had requested a copy of the record and an extension of time to file his response. The State filed a response in opposition to the rehearing.
On August 24, 2006, this court granted appellant=s motion for rehearing, ordered our opinion of June 29, 2006, in this cause withdrawn, and ordered that appellant be furnished a copy of the record. The district clerk informed this court that appellant received the record, and appellant filed his pro se response to counsel=s brief. The State then filed a reply to appellant=s response.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, appellant=s response, and the State=s reply. We agree with counsel that 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.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 21, 2006.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] This court affirmed appellant=s burglary conviction. See Alejandro v. State, No. 14-05-00905-CR (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] June 29, 2006, pet. filed) (not designated for publication).