                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ____________________

                               NO. 09-15-00186-CR
                              ____________________

                   ADRIAN GRANADOS-YEPEZ, Appellant

                                         V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 13-01-00909 CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Adrian Granados-Yepez pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, and the trial

court sentenced Granados-Yepez to twenty-five years in prison. Granados-Yepez’s

appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the

record and concludes Granados-Yepez’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). Granados-Yepez filed a pro se brief in response.



                                          1
      The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the

merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may determine that: (1)

“the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed

the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “arguable grounds for appeal exist

and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to

brief the issues.” Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We

have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we

agree that no arguable issues support the appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

      AFFIRMED.

                                             ______________________________
                                                    STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice

Submitted on October 16, 2015
Opinion Delivered November 4, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.



      1
        Granados-Yepez may challenge our decision by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2
