COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ANTHONY WHITE, '
No. 08-11-00130-CR
Appellant, '
Appeal from the
v. '
89th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, '
of Wichita County, Texas
'
Appellee.
' (TC#44,289-C)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Anthony White entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of aggravated
assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon.1 He was convicted, and the jury assessed
punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at seventy years’ confinement. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states, and her brief
demonstrates that she has performed a professional evaluation of the record, and that she has
concluded the record contains no reversible error and no jurisdictional defects. The brief meets
the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh.
denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 22.02(a)(2), (b)(2)(B) (West 2011).
advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516
S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief and the
appellate record have been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to
file a pro se brief, which he has done.
We have carefully reviewed the record, including counsel’s brief, Appellant’s response,
and the State’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner
v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without
merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
The issues raised in Appellant’s pro se brief have no arguable merit. See Garner, 300
S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. A discussion of the contentions advanced in the pro
se brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not required to address the
merits of each claim raised in a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable
grounds for review. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
________________________________________
December 21, 2012 GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.
(Do Not Publish)
2