Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 6, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-01046-CR
____________
DEBRA ELAINE MAXWELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1131702
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered a guilty plea to theft. On December 7, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty months in the State Jail 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.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Guzman, and Boyce.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).