DANNY HOLLINS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Moseley

Danny Hollins appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.   See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010);  Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).   The trial court assessed twenty-year sentences in each case.   On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are 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.   We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (court of appeals'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).   We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.

JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE