Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 8, 2007.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00627-CR
NO. 14-06-00628-CR
NO. 14-06-00629-CR
____________
GUADALUPE MENDOZA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1025189, 1025190, 1025191
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant was charged with three separate offenses. Cause number 1025189, number 14-06-00627-CR on appeal, charged appellant with indecency with a child. Cause number 1025190, number 14-06-00628-CR on appeal, and Cause number 1025191, number 14-06-00629-CR on appeal, charged appellant with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to all three offenses. On July 14, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in cause number 1025189, and confinement for seventy-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in cause numbers 1025190 and 1025191, all three sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in all three cases..
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets 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). At appellant=s request, the record was provided to him. On January 9, 2007, 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 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 judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 8, 2007.
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).