




Opinion of May 21, 2009, Withdrawn; Affirmed and Corrected Memorandum
Opinion filed June 4, 2009







 
Opinion
of May 21, 2009, Withdrawn; Affirmed and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed
June 4, 2009.
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of
Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-08-00727-CR
____________
 
TERRY WELDON ANDERSON, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 

 
On Appeal from the 114th District
Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No.
13,786-93
 

 
C O R R E C T E D   M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N
We withdraw the opinion issued May 21, 2009 and issue a
corrected opinion in its place to correct the trial court number.




 Appellant
entered a guilty plea to murder.  After a pre-sentence investigation, on
November 15, 1993, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for life
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and
assessed a fine of $5,000.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the Twelfth
Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  See Anderson v. State, No. 12‑93‑00312‑CR
(Tex. App.CTyler Jun. 29, 1994, no pet.).  The Court of Criminal Appeals= granted appellant=s application for post-conviction
writ of habeas corpus and ordered that appellant was entitled to file an
out-of-time appeal.  See Ex Parte Anderson, No. AP-75,942 (Tex. Crim.
App. Jun. 18, 2008) (not designated for publication).  Appellant then filed a
pro se notice of appeal, and this appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant
to a docket equalization order from the Texas Supreme Court..
Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in
which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief
meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record 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 record 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 was provided to
him, and appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.
We have
carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, 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,
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  Appellant=s motion to dismiss the underlying
case, which was carried with the appeal, is denied.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices
Anderson and Seymore. 
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).

