




Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009







Affirmed
and Memorandum Opinion filed February 5, 2009.
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-07-00441-CR
NO. 14-07-00442-CR
____________
 
DELVIN E. BRADFORD,
Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 174th District
Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos.
1085154, 1085155
 

 
M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N




Appellant
entered a plea of guilty to the offenses of attempted capital murder (Trial
Court Cause No. 1085154, Appeal No. 14-07-00441-CR) and possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver (Trial Court Cause No. 1085155,
Appeal No. 14-07-00442-CR).  On May 23, 2007, the trial court sentenced
appellant in both causes to confinement for twenty-five years in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial
court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.  Appellant filed a notice of
appeal in both causes.
Appellant=s appointed counsel 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, 87
S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record in each
cause demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy
of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right
to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response.  See Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant=s request, the record in each cause
was provided to him.  On January 23, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to
counsel=s brief.
We have
carefully reviewed the record in each cause and counsel=s brief, as well as appellant=s pro se response. We  agree with
counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, in
each cause we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the
brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  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,
in each cause the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Boyce.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).

