COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

O P I N I O N

           Appellant entered a plea of not guilty before a jury to the offense of burglary of a habitation. He was convicted, and the jury assessed punishment at twelve years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

           Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

           We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

           The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                  RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice

March 31, 2005

Before Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)