Roderick T. Prudhomme entered a plea of no contest to aggravated sexual assault, a first degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Prudhomme on community supervision for eight years. After finding Prudhomme violated his probation terms, the trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.

Prudhomme's appellate counsel filed an Anders ⁽¹⁾ brief. Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record to demonstrate why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Prudhomme with a copy of the brief. Prudhomme then filed a pro se brief. Finding no arguable error, we affirm.

Prudhomme raises three appellate issues. First, he asserts that he was denied due process because he was not allowed to present mitigating testimony at his sentencing hearing. Second, he complains that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing. Last, he argues that his sentence is excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and to other similar cases.

The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we 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, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"[;] or (2) "that 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 independently examined the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief. We find no reversible error in the record. ⁽²⁾ We agree with appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appointment of new counsel is not required. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Prudhomme is free to file a petition for discretionary review raising error by this Court in the instant appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on April 12, 2007

Opinion Delivered May 23, 2007

Do Not Publish

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

1. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2.Relief in appropriate cases for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally available through an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).