RICHARD JARVIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appellant Richard Jarvis appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 29.03, 22.02 (West 2011). Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (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, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree the appeals are 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.