Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-00555-CR, NO. 14-07-00556-CR, NO. 14-07-00557CR,
NO. 14-07-00558-CR, NO. 14-07-00559-CR, NO. 14-07-00560-CR, and
NO. 14-07-00561-CR
ALAA ABBAS ELKHAFAGE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 339th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1066697, 1066698, 1066699, 1066700,
1066702, 1066703, and 1066705
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the following offenses.
$ Aggravated Kidnapping in No. 14-07-00555-CR; trial court cause number 1066697;
$ Aggravated Robbery in No. 14-07-00556-CR; trial court cause number 1066698;
$ Robbery in No. 14-07-00557-CR; trial court cause number 1066699;
$ Aggravated Robbery in No. 14-07-00558-CR; trial court cause number 1066700;
$ Aggravated Kidnapping in No. 14-07-00559-CR; trial court cause number 1066702;
$ Aggravated Robbery in No. 14-07-00560-CR; trial court cause number 1066703; and
$ Aggravated Kidnapping in No. 14-07-00561-CR; trial court cause number 1066705.
On June 29, 2007, for the offense of robbery (No. 14-07-00557-CR; trial court cause number 1066699), the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In each of the other causes, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court ordered all the sentences to run concurrently. For each of the offenses of aggravated robbery, a finding was entered that a deadly weapon was used. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in all seven cases.
In each case, appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet 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).
In each case, 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 each of counsel=s briefs and agree that in each case the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Further, in each case we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the briefs would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 7, 2008.
Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Frost, and Seymore.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).