Jeremiah Jamar Davis A/K/A Jeremiah Davis v. State

Motions to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 26, 2012. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-12-00073-CR NO. 14-12-00074-CR JEREMIAH JAMAR DAVIS A/K/A JEREMIAH DAVIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 11-11873 & 11-11874 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to evading arrest or detention with the use of a vehicle in cause number 11-11873. He also entered a plea of guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in cause number 11-11874. On August 15, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, with the sentences probated for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke, and an amended motion to revoke, appellant’s probation in both cases, alleging five violations of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision. Appellant entered a plea of true to two counts in the motions, but he pleaded not true to the fifth count. After a hearing on January 17, 2012, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to support three allegations in the motions to revoke. On January 17, 2012, the trial court signed a judgment in each case revoking appellant’s community supervision and sentencing him to confinement for two years in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in each case in which he concludes that the appeals are 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 records and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Copies of counsel’s briefs were delivered to appellant. Counsel also provided appellant with copies of the records and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than sixty days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. 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 Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jamison. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2