Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00299-CR

____________

RICHARD MENDIOLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 40,623

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of the offense of indecency with a child. The trial court sentenced appellant to life in prison.  This judgment of conviction was affirmed by the First Court of Appeals in Mendiola v. State, 01-02-00556-CR, 2003 WL 22413903 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).  Appellant subsequently filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during trial.  The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the writ and remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.  Ex Parte Mendiola, No. AP-75476, 2006 WL 2075667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  On March 19, 2007, trial court held a punishment hearing and sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a 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 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).  Appellant did not ask this court for a copy of the record, but on October 9, 2007, appellant 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.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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