ALFRED DARRIN LUCAS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice O'Neill

Alfred Darrin Lucas appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a knife.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (West Supp.2010).   The trial court assessed punishment at seven years' imprisonment.   On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.   The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).   The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance.   See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).   Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues.   However, a court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in a pro se response.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).   Rather, the Court's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues.  Id.

After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE