Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 28, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-10-00309-CR
NO. 14-10-00310-CR
____________
EMANUEL CAMACHO GOMEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 226th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 2008-CR-7389 & 2008-CR-7390
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of no contest to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In both cases, on February 8, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, to run concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case.
In both 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), 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 (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. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed in either case.
We have carefully reviewed the record in each case and counsel=s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in either record. 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, in each case the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).