Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-04-00833-CR;

         14-04-00834-CR

____________

MICHAEL LEIGH SPIER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 892,402 & 892,403

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered guilty pleas to two counts of indecency with a child.  In accordance with the terms of the plea bargain agreements with the State, the trial court placed appellant on eight years deferred adjudication probation on February 12, 2002.  The State subsequently moved to adjudicate.  On July 30, 2004, appellant agreed to plead true to the stipulations of evidence, admitting that he had violated the terms and conditions of probation, in return for the prosecutor=s recommendation that appellant=s punishment be set at ten years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. By nunc pro tunc orders, entered on December 6, 2004, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes 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 (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).  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the records.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).